Iro's One Movie a Day Thread

[Iroquois]

#651 - Star Wars
George Lucas, 1977

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/star-wars-cinematography.jpg

In a distant galaxy, a young farmhand finds himself caught up in the conflict between a totalitarian regime and a group of rebels.

Is it possible for me to get seriously objective about Star Wars? I ranked this as my third favourite film ever about ten years ago and even now, despite the many flaws that are evident (especially when watching the revised Special Edition that grafts on all sorts of computer-generated effects to make the film quite the eyesore), I still like it. It helps that it's a fairly uncomplicated film that doesn't get too bogged down in things, although there's a sluggishness to the first act as the film starts setting up all the conflicts and players. The opening sequence with Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and her small diplomatic vessel being overrun by a massive spaceship full of Imperial stormtroopers is still a good way to start the film. However, from there the film hits something of a dull patch as it follows the misadventures of a pair of droids - neurotic chatterbox C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) and his inscrutable counterpart R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) - as they are marooned on the desert planet of Tatooine as part of a secret mission. The one-sided banter that forms as a result of R2 only being able to communicate in beeps and whistles whose meaning can only be inferred from 3PO's responses is amusing, but it definitely needs to be in order to carry a series of fairly slow scenes that are interspersed with the occasional cutaways to the bad guys' side of things as the deep-voiced cyborg Darth Vader (played by David Prowse and voiced by James Earl Jones) readily demonstrates why he's one of the most iconic villains in cinema history (if not the most). Fortunately, this doesn't last too long after the introduction of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the plucky young hero who dreams of leaving behind his dull farming lifestyle in the hopes of becoming a fighter pilot for the Rebel Alliance.

From that point on, Star Wars becomes a good example of high adventure at its purest as Luke is soon caught up in a perilous situation that sees him go from encountering savage raiders to fighting high-speed space battles against professional fighter pilots. After getting its somewhat clunky first act out of the way, it speeds through the rest of the plot thanks to the careful dedication displayed in every factor of the film. Major credit has to go to the actors; though they may vary in terms of ability, they all manage to make characters that have become memorable for all the right reasons. Hamill gets the thankless job of being the film's naive farmboy hero, but he sells it well and doesn't get annoying. Harrison Ford naturally steals the show as freewheeling mercenary Han Solo, deftly balancing a world-weary outlook with steely-eyed charm and cavalier bravado. Though Fisher spends a good chunk of the film being a damsel in distress, she gets credit for being one very acerbic damsel who is still able to demonstrate a sensitive side without it coming across as fake. Alec Guinness's turn as the wise old Jedi master Obi-Wan Kenobi can be marred by an awareness of the man's later disdain for the series, but it's hard to tell her due to his sheer professionalism bringing some serious gravitas to the proceedings. Prowse's imposing physical stature and Jones' metallic delivery combine to make Vader a great villain, while Peter Cushing delivers an appropriately ruthless performance as the callously bureaucratic Moff Tarkin. There's also Peter Mayhew as Solo's hirsute partner-in-crime Chewbacca (who is like R2 in that his unintelligible lines have to be translated via his partner's reactions), and Daniels and Baker's great odd-couple act still holds up very well even though they also had the potential to turn out badly.

The world-building is still impressive (though now that I'm trying to read Dune I'm wondering if Lucas took influence from that book when it came to creating Tatooine) as it peppers its high-fantasy tale with distinctive-looking aliens and flashy pieces of technology. Lucas definitely wears his influences on his sleeve as he takes inspiration from various different genres and sub-genres and combines them together into a surprisingly consistent whole. Though it's a bit difficult to judge while watching the Special Edition (I do wonder if I've ever seen the un-altered version - if I have, it's been long enough that I don't remember for sure), the effects used to render the world and its action are also amazing in their detail and the work needed to bring every facet to life, which is ironically obscured a bit by Lucas's attempts to create a "special" edition that isn't very special when all is said and done. Even now, I still think of this film as a special-effects touchstone where the entirety of cinema can be divided into films that came before this and films that came after this, and it is very easy to see why as it comes up with all sorts of set-pieces to generate thrills and excitement even when said set-pieces don't make the most sense. This was the viewing where I finally realised the lack of logic behind a monster being able to live and thrive in a trash compactor room - if it swims away when the compacting starts, where does it even swim to? (I'm sure there's an explanation, though.)

Star Wars still proves to be a very watchable film underneath its occasional questionable moments or extremely unnecessary digital touch-ups. The writing is obviously far from perfect but the diction is still charming even in the unlikeliest of instances and it provides the foundations for an elaborate mythology that manages to avoid getting too muddled here. A variety of performers infuse everyone from bickering robots to sallow-faced bureaucrats with a vital energy that adequately compensates for any written shortcomings. The film is still a technical marvel to the point where the attempts to upgrade the film with newer technologies manage to feel very unimpressive in comparison. John Williams' iconic score covers a variety of moods ranging from triumph to melancholy and sounds good all the time even when it shouldn't (case in point - those ridiculously jaunty tunes from the cantina scenes). Star Wars is a classic that has weathered many problems since its release and, though I'd be hard-pressed to call myself a huge fan of the series these days, I think I'll always have a place in my heart for it.

4.5

[Iroquois]

#652 - Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
Irvin Kershner, 1980

http://movieboozer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/empire-strikes-back-main-review.jpg

When the members of a rebel group are scattered during a battle with the forces of a totalitarian regime, one of them must learn an ancient warrior code while his friends go on the run.

If you were to ask the average movie-goer to name a sequel that was superior to its predecessor, then The Empire Strikes Back is liable to be one of the most common answers you would receive. Re-watching Empire for the first time in I don't know how long shows that, in a lot of ways, it's prone to the same flaws that would threaten to sink any other sequels. For starters, there's the fact that it's pretty clearly intended to be the middle part of a trilogy; though this isn't exactly an obstacle to it being a great film (you could make the same case for Evil Dead II, which is one of my all-time favourite sequels), it perhaps feels a bit too fundamentally transitional to truly stand out on its own merits. This much is definitely true of each of the three heroes' arcs that develop in the aftermath of their victory against (but not over) the Galactic Empire at the end of the previous film. Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) is still intent on learning the ways of the Jedi and must separate from his friends to do so, traveling to the swamp planet of Dagobah to learn under the guidance of wizened master Yoda (Frank Oz). Meanwhile, Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) are forced to make a hasty escape following an Imperial attack on the Rebels' latest home base on the ice planet Hoth. Between their belligerent romantic tension and the various risky maneuvers they have to take in order to survive, they arguably provide more of a straightforward plot to follow than Luke's extended training montage. All the while, Darth Vader (David Prowse being dubbed over by James Earl Jones) remains in constant pursuit...

One of the reasons why The Empire Strikes Back is so heavily lauded is due to the depth of the characterisation on display, adding complexity to certain superficially simple journeys. Luke's earnest desire to become a Jedi ends up being more challenging than he expected as he must not only contend with the physical rigours of his training but also the psychic toll it takes as he must confront his inner demons in the process. In doing so, the film definitely develops Luke far away from the wide-eyed farmboy he was in the last film. Han may not be the same self-serving mercenary that he was in the last film, but that doesn't mean that he is totally free of his checkered past, which comes back to haunt him in a truly devastating manner. Leia arguably draws the short straw as her arc is intertwined with Han's instead of standing on its own; having been established in the first film as a fairly capable freedom fighter in her own right, this time around she isn't relegated to merely being rescued but instead gets to serve as the idealistic foil to the cynical Han. To this end, Ford and Fisher provide good chemistry whether they're snapping back and forth at each other or steadily accepting their feelings for one another even in the most unforgiving of circumstances.

While familiar side-characters like Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew), C-3PO (Anthony Daniels), and R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) don't have similarly significant arcs, they still bring the same level of charm that was present in the last film. Vader also gets his motivations and background fleshed out further, helping to make him more complex than his obviously villainous appearance and actions would imply. The film is lean on new characters, but what few new ones it does introduce are good. Though Yoda's initial appearance and mannerisms threaten to cement him as comic-relief (and, to be fair, his first scene is still pretty funny), Oz naturally steps up and embraces the mentor archetype, providing a sensible mixture of stubbornly strict training methods, oddly encouraging words beneath his distinctive syntax, and of course plenty of signs of emotional depth beyond his outside appearance as a tiny, half-crazed hermit. The other main addition is Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams), the charismatic former associate of Han who has managed to leave behind the criminal lifestyle and build a legitimate business for himself. Though he starts off as a smooth-talking charmer, certain story progressions also give him a strong character despite his relatively limited appearances. Even minor characters become noteworthy - while Boba Fett became iconic despite his brief screen-time and relative lack of action, I think credit has to go to Captain (later Admiral) Piett (Kenneth Colley), who puts a very human face on the people working for the Empire as he must bear witness to Vader choking his colleagues to death on a regular basis while trying to avoid the same fate himself.

In attempting to juggle two separate narratives for the bulk of the film, The Empire Strikes Back can't help but lapse into some rather episodic plot structures. The first act takes a while to get going as it begins with Luke being attacked by a yeti-like creature and getting rescued by Han, though it does provide a memorable action set-piece as the Rebels must evacuate Hoth while fighting off Imperial invaders. From there, Luke's adventures on the swamp planet of Dagobah have a clear progression, though they are a bit oddly-paced and also seem to move slowly even when it's for reasons that do make sense within the narrative. Meanwhile, the plot following Han and Leia as they try to evade the Imperials in the face of technical difficulties and serious desperation does come across as a little padded. The entire sequence where they hide from the Imperials by flying the Millennium Falcon inside a cave-riddled asteroid is arguably the biggest offender in this regard, though it is at least redeemed by the fact that it provides a quiet breather and room for character development. Things do pick up once they arrive in Cloud City and the film begins to build towards its conclusion, but that's to be expected. Even then, inter-cutting both the climatic duel and the climatic escape can't help but feel imbalanced as one is definitely more interesting to watch than the other. At least nothing here feels as unnecessary as the Jabba the Hutt scene that was included in the original film's special edition.

Another favourable quality about The Empire Strikes Back is that its special edition has the least obtrusive alterations of the trilogy. Though you can pick some flashy additions to certain establishing shots or action scenes, it's handled with nuance and discretion so as not to stick out like a sore thumb as it does in the other films. The art direction and set design are impressive as always; while ice planets and swamp planets may not provide anything too distinctive, the detail put into their construction is still apparent even before the film reaches the sleek white corridors and gloomy orange-and-black factories of Cloud City. The action is definitely upgraded as well - the climax delivers a very promising lightsaber duel that overshadows almost everything else in the film, though the aforementioned Hoth sequence is also very impressive and I think I might honestly prefer it to the climatic dog-fight that served as the climax to the original film. John Williams also ups the ante as he not only provides new reiterations on the original film's score but also comes up with some solid new additions, especially the iconic "Imperial March" that serves primarily as Darth Vader's leitmotif.

Though I will concede that The Empire Strikes Back is still a film that can't quite stand apart from its predecessor, that hardly seems relevant as it amply builds upon the established world and characters to provide a film that at the very least measures up to one considerably high standard. It goes into darker territory without getting bogged down in vacuous nihilism, while the somewhat haphazard plotting is more than compensated for by the strength of many individual scenes. Characters that once filled broad archetypes are given greater definition and even new ones are granted surprising levels of nuance. Meanwhile, the space fantasy setting and its mythology that was only teased at earlier is expanded in ways that admittedly threaten to collapse in on themselves but fortunately work to sustain a film that goes above and beyond the high adventure promised by the original.

4.5

[Iroquois]

#653 - Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi
Richard Marquand, 1983

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/underwire/2013/05/return02.jpeg

A farmhand-turned-warrior must rescue his friends from a terrible fate and help them to take down a totalitarian regime once and for all.

Setting out to make the type of trilogy that tells a complete story across its three parts is a risky proposition, especially when the latter two parts are supposed to be a single continuation of what could originally function as a stand-alone film. Assuming you can avoid sophomore slump with the second installment, that just puts greater pressure on the final part to deliver a satisfactory conclusion. Even if it does succeed in that regard, that success doesn't automatically guarantee that the film is a solid film in its own right; as a result, the final film in a trilogy stands a very good chance of being considering the weakest. Return of the Jedi has unfortunately earned such a reputation as it is generally considered the weakest of the original three Star Wars films, but it's not exactly a colossal failure considering the eminent reputation of its predecessors. The best one could hope for was a satisfactory conclusion and, in many regards, Return of the Jedi does provide that.

After dedicating a considerable chunk of its opening time to resolving the cliff-hanger ending of The Empire Strikes Back, which saw roguish anti-hero Han Solo (Harrison Ford) being captured and delivered to the repulsive underworld figure Jabba the Hutt, the story picks up once again as the war between the Galactic Empire and the Rebel Alliance heads towards its final stages. The Empire has started working on a new Death Star to replace the one that blew up two films previously, but the Rebels have once again managed to get their hands on the plans necessary to expose and exploit a structural weakness. Meanwhile, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) has managed to recover from his devastating battle with Darth Vader (David Prowse/James Earl Jones) and is ready to realise his full potential as a Jedi knight. Unfortunately, this means that he must confront Vader once again for reasons that go beyond merely defeating the skull-faced figurehead of the evil Empire. Of course, Vader not only knows this but is also working on behalf of his immediate superior Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) to not only defeat the Rebel Alliance but also turn Luke from a formidable enemy into a powerful ally by any means necessary...

The Star Wars films have always felt like their first acts tend to run for a bit too long for their own good even if it is the name of exposition and spectacular action; Return of the Jedi arguably avoids this by dropping audiences into the middle of a new adventure as our heroes mount their own somewhat complicated plan to rescue Han from Jabba's clutches, though it does get a little repetitive as it shows failure after failure before the inevitable success. I can understand how the heroes would try more subtle plans before resorting to more drastic measures, but watching them play out isn't all that exciting for the most part (even when understood as part of a slow-building adventure, it still drags). The film then slows down a bit for the sake of some fairly stolid exposition...and then comes the forest moon of Endor. A lot of the ire directed at Jedi can be credited to how the powers that be decided that the heroes' allies in their final battle with the Empire should be...Ewoks, the small bear-like tribal race that are initially willing to eat their human captives and revere the incredibly shiny C-3PO as a living god. The attempt to create family-friendly shenanigans using the fuzzy little monsters does come across as over-compensating for the moody cynicism that defined The Empire Strikes Back, especially when their primitive methods end up overcoming the Empire's advanced technology in ways that don't exactly seem that plausible. Still, at least they're not quite as annoying as the equally pandering tribe of feral kids from Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome.

I noted in my review for The Empire Strikes Back that one of its greatest strengths was the strong characterisation that was afforded to characters great and small, especially in the case of the three heroes. In Return of the Jedi, the only character arcs of any apparent importance or depth become those belonging to Luke and Vader. To this end, Han, Leia, and Lando are effectively talking props who exist here less as fully-formed characters than as interchangeable pawns in the film's various action sequences. They do get the odd piece of character development (the main example being Leia's reaction to a certain revelation that leads to some tension with Han), but otherwise they basically have to exude the same level of personality displayed in the last two films and little else beyond that. Of course, just like the Emperor's complex web of evil plans, this is a flaw that's arguably by design as the Star Wars trilogy has always really been Luke's story. He's the one who made the journey from ordinary moisture farmer to battle-scarred Jedi in the space of three films, just as Vader has gone from being a faceless agent of pure evil to an emotionally conflicted subordinate to a power-hungry overlord. Bringing the two of them together doesn't just mean that we get to see cool-looking lightsaber duels, it's also the whole point of the trilogy and to watch it finally play out before the malevolent, manipulative Emperor easily ends up being the best thing about this film (even if the Emperor himself does come across as a bit too transparently evil in ways that not even his villainous croak and shadowy appearance can adequately balance out).

I'm not sure which Star Wars film suffers more from the very unnecessary tweaks provided by the Special Editions; the original film or this. I think I might be inclined to give it to this film because, damn, that number with the computer-generated singer from early in the film really gets on my nerves in a way that not even the addition of extra scenes and Hayden Christensen to the celebratory denouement can reach (though it's not for a lack of trying). I think it does kind of work when it comes to depicting Lando's own attack on the Death Star, but that's about it. The climatic lightsaber duel naturally works, though it is a bit too broken up by the Endor scenes. While said scenes are intermittently entertaining and arguably necessary, their deployment within the narrative did make me realise that the climaxes of Star Wars films really do tend to involve multiple simultaneous conflicts regardless of whether or not they mesh together all that well. The same ambivalence extends to the non-action scenes, especially when the film tries to milk some humour out of the Ewoks (even if that one scene with the dead Ewok is genuinely a little sad) or get a little bogged down in exposition. That doesn't stop the film from having the odd good moment - the scene where Luke and Leia reconnect after being set free by the Ewoks proves a surprisingly touching and well-acted moment in the midst of that aggressively cartoonish sequence of events.

While Return of the Jedi definitely deserves some recognition for how well it handles the conclusion to the trilogy's arc involving Luke and Vader, it does so at the expense of the rest of the film. There are plenty of nice touches that mean that the film doesn't become unwatchable; John Williams' score once again involves orchestras at their most bombastic and I really do like the simple yet supremely sinister leitmotif that is used during scenes featuring the Emperor (though any attempt to veer outside that purview ends up being rather questionable). The characters may be flatter for the most part, but everyone does their job just fine anyway; Hamill is particular is quite a stand-out as he aptly lends dramatic weight to the final steps in Luke's journey. The more irritating parts of the Special Edition do admittedly drag it down a lot, and the Ewoks' antics bounce between charming and annoying a bit too often, but those flaws can ultimately be overlooked as Return of the Jedi provides a fairly satisfactory (if not overly amazing) conclusion to one of the most beloved film trilogies in existence.

3.5

[Iroquois]

#654 - Riddick
David Twohy, 2013

https://popcornaddiction.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/riddick-2.jpg

A wanted criminal and one-time overlord of a death cult awakens on a deserted planet and must do his best to survive the various dangers that he encounters.

I have to wonder if the decision to release a new Riddick movie was inspired by the extremely successful revival of Vin Diesel's other major franchise, the Fast and the Furious film series. It started with 2000's Pitch Black, where Diesel's Riddick was one of a ragtag group of survivors stranded on an alien planet that was not only populated by vicious nocturnal creatures but also happened to be undergoing a prolonged eclipse at the same time. Pitch Black made for a half-decent little B-movie that proved popular enough to warrant a sequel. That sequel ended up being 2004's The Chronicles of Riddick, which tried to expand upon the character and his universe by swapping out the original film's horror premise for a more straightforward action film. Unfortunately, that resulted in an extremely dry slice of gaudy and ridiculous space-opera where the brutality that had defined both Riddick and his first film was either absent or neutered thanks to a PG-13 rating. This brings us to 2013's Riddick, the first live-action film about the goggle-wearing badass in almost a decade (he had appeared in a couple of videogames and animated shorts in the meantime), and it at least promises to be different to its rather shoddy predecessor.

Riddick goes back to basics by starting the film with Riddick being stranded on a deserted planet, this time all by himself. After a flashback that explains his presence on the planet by acknowledging the events of the previous film, he proceeds to learn how to survive on the planet on his own, which amounts to befriending a space wolf and attempting to fight off the poisonous reptilian creatures that live just under the planet's dusty surface. When he discovers a deserted ship, he hits the emergency button in the hopes of being rescued. Unfortunately, the ship's sensors identify him as having an extremely lucrative bounty on his head and it's not long before not one but two ships arrive in search of his bounty. While one ship carries a bunch of bloodthirsty mercenaries, the other carries some slightly more civilised soldiers whose leader (Matt Nable) has his own reasons for seeking out Riddick. From there, the film starts to fall apart as it starts to rehash Pitch Black, first by having Riddick become the film's de facto monster as he proceeds to launch a campaign of guerrilla warfare against his enemies (but with much more violent results) before having the various survivors team up against not just an approaching environmental threat but also the onslaught of the aforementioned reptilian creatures.

Though the technical side of things has improved in the decade-plus since Pitch Black first came out, the improvements do little to compensate for the film's more obviously derivative or nonsensical moments. While Diesel doesn't do anything too different with his growling anti-hero and is at least okay enough to carry the film's first third on his lonesome, the same doesn't really go for the rest of the characters. Given how a good chunk of the film amounts to following the mercenaries as their numbers dwindle in the face of Riddick's stealthy attacks, you'd think they'd be afforded a bit more personality, but no, they are all flat or fill out some well-worn soldier/villain stereotypes. The only real exceptions are Nable as the self-righteous "good" mercenary who at least has a good reason for hunting Riddick, while Katee Sackhoff almost works as the token female character but is let down by writer-director Twohy's very poor handling of her character's sexual orientation. While Riddick may have moments that promise to put it on par with Pitch Black, for the most part it's a pretty dull exercise in diminishing returns that only barely comes across as preferable to the garish fantasy of The Chronicles of Riddick. Only recommended to people who really liked Pitch Black, otherwise there's not really much of worth here.

1.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

I think the third was the weakest one as it tried to go back to basics, but that was mostly due to budget restraints. I don't dislike the second as much as you do. It tried to expand the universe a bit, but did get a bit too bloated with things.

[Swan]

Would you say Riddick is riddick...ulous?

[nebbit]

So glad I have held off seeing this :up:

[Iroquois]

#655 - Highlander: The Source
Brett Leonard, 2007

http://91.207.61.14/m/uploads/v_p_images/2007/02/9273_14_screenshot.png

An immortal swordsman is reluctantly brought into the fray when an ancient prophecy threatens to come true.

"There can be only one" are the arc words that serve as both catch-phrase and plot summary for the cult '80s fantasy film Highlander, yet they also prove telling when taking into account the many attempts to expand upon the film's understandably limited mythology. Initial sequel Highlander 2: The Quickening took the franchise into infamously absurd sci-fi territory; it was reviled so much that third film Highlander: The Final Dimension disregarded its events entirely and ended up being little more than an empty rehash of the original film. Most surprisingly, the film spawned a spin-off television series about Duncan MacLeod (Adrian Paul), an immortal relative of original film protagonist Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert). After running for several seasons, the show got its own movie with Highlander: Endgame, which saw both MacLeods team up to face a powerful enemy. Though its television-level production values ultimately prevented it from being a good film in its own right, it is arguably the least objectionable of any of the Highlander sequels.

Highlander: The Source, on the other hand, is probably the most objectionable of all the sequels. It is the first film to not feature Connor in some manner - instead, it focuses on Duncan as he reunites with a few other immortal friends in order to search for the titular "Source", a magic MacGuffin that is guarded by the imaginatively-monikered "Guardian". Said Guardian is an immortal who has been cursed to protect the Source but in being cursed is probably the most dangerous immortal yet, so of course Duncan and his comrades must try to figure out how to deal with him. There's also something to do with the planets aligning and also another lost love of Duncan's, but really, the MacGuffin plot is all you need. Unfortunately, even a plot as simple as that one gets muddled under all the characters that are jam-packed into this incredibly short film before being summarily murdered in vicious and apparently dramatic ways. While I remember Endgame being easy enough to follow without needing to be familiar with the Highlander TV series, I feel like The Source is perhaps a bit too dependent on such a familiarity. I guess that has something to do with the expectation that if you're actually willing to watch this then you have to be enough of a Highlander fanatic to have actually seen the show and already met the characters. That's still not much of an excuse, though.

Other Highlander films have been taken to task for their perceived ineptitude in regards to every facet of filmmaking, but The Source truly is on another level when it comes to being bad. I may have talked up the hidden potential in straight-to-video action films when I reviewed the Universal Soldier sequels, and to be fair, at least Highlander: The Source has a rather striking visual palette that stands out despite the film's meagre production values. However, soaking entire scenes in the same shade of red or blue can also prove an obfuscating eyesore, and that's without getting into the ramshackle effects work that tries to bring the immortals' various powers to life. Digital blur is everywhere as the characters move and fight at various speeds, while the camerawork and editing tend to be of very poor quality as well. This is a shame because it obscures the fights, which is the main thing that the movie had going for it. What else is there? The answer is the needlessly convoluted plot about an ancient prophecy featuring a bunch of flat and badly-acted characters; the only memorable one is the Guardian himself, and that's because Highlander villains need to be able to chew the scenery with gusto whether it works or not.

On its own terms, Highlander: The Source is an aggressively awful excuse for fantasy action that references its existing mythology in the most obnoxious ways possible; as if having a terrible metal cover of Queen's "Princes of the Universe" playing on the soundtrack wasn't insulting enough, there's also a scene where the Guardian taunts a prospective victim by hoarsely singing the chorus of "Who Wants To Live Forever?". The rare instance of visual flair is crushed under the weight of shoddy effects and poor action sequences while the bland storyline is not aided in any way by these very unremarkable players. The ultimate testament to the inherent badness of The Source is that, as of writing, it has more or less managed to kill the supposedly unkillable Highlander franchise once and for all. The franchise has weathered some notoriously terrible installments, yet this one managed to outdo them and make it so that the next actual film is liable to be a straight-up reboot. There have been a few Highlander sequels and they've all been awful in their own ways, but if you had to decide which one was the worst, well, it can be only this one.

1

[Iroquois]

#656 - Back to the Future
Robert Zemeckis, 1985

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/gli9j2lyxntri8xd3qwn.jpg

When a teenager is accidentally sent thirty years into the past, he must work with an eccentric scientist in order to set right what once went wrong.

Cinema as entertainment doesn't get much more pure than Back to the Future. It has one of the most simple yet ingenious high concepts from a decade that was seemingly dedicated to refining the high concept, with just enough creativity to make it unique without alienating a mass audience. For starters, it centres on the extremely unlikely pairing of high-school senior Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) and elderly scientist Dr. Emmett Brown (Christopher Lloyd). There's nothing too extraordinary about Marty - he's just a regular 1985 teenager who dreams of being a rock star while also having to bear witness to his extremely dysfunctional family and their dead-end lives. When he meets up with Doc Brown one night, he learns that the Doc has managed to build a working time machine out of a DeLorean. However, since Doc's scheme involves scamming a Libyan terrorist cell, they soon come searching for revenge; in all the excitement, Marty is transported back in time to 1955. He teams up with the younger version of Doc Brown in order to find a way for him to return to his own time, but things are complicated when he not only runs into the teenage versions of his mother Lorraine (Lea Thompson) and father George (Crispin Glover), but has to also guarantee that they fall in love or else he'll never be born.

There are plenty of reasons why it might be easy to dismiss Back to the Future. There's the ostensibly questionable friendship between an old man and a high-school senior that never gets addressed, the science in this film that is as soft as it gets without becoming true fantasy, and then there's the various unfortunate implications that come about over the course of the film. The most obvious one regards what happens to high-school bully Biff Tannen (Thomas J. Wilson) in the ending, especially in light of his more reprehensible actions during the film. It's a credit to the cleverness of Zemeckis and co-writer Bob Gale that these flaws are pretty minor in the scheme of things and acknowledging them is usually done in a fashion that allows them to more or less be shrugged off. The writing is a major selling point as it crafts an extremely tight and reasonably consistent narrative that pulls off all manner of clever set-ups; even if you were to be uncharitable and refer to them as coincidences, they're pulled off so well that it doesn't matter. Rather, it serves to complement the tight plotting that creates a variety of conflicts promised not just by the issue of Marty being trapped thirty years in the past and but also interpersonal complications such as not only having to deal with the short-tempered Biff but also the fact that Lorraine finds him much more attractive than the gawky George. Stretching this many plot strands across a single film is always a challenge but it's handled deftly and the tension only builds as the strands intertwine and the countdown towards Marty's only shot at going home keeps ticking away.

Of course, the soft science-fiction and adventure elements involved probably wouldn't fly as well if not for the fact that the bulk of the film is framed as a rather straightforward high-school comedy. The oddness of the friendship between Doc and Marty has been noted, but between the former's manic eccentricity and the latter's easygoing charisma they make for a sufficiently interesting odd-couple dynamic, especially when embodied by capable performers like Lloyd and Fox. Lloyd in particular steals the show with his wild-eyed scenery-chewing and ability to deliver the most nonsensical jargon with both strong conviction and marvellous comic timing. Other characters fill out some easily-identifiable roles with solid performances; Thompson and Glover embody the surprisingly lusty '50s everygirl and socially awkward nerd respectively. Wilson also has great screen presence as the square-headed tough-guy who mercilessly goes after those who either upset or attract him; not even the squeaky-clean PG comedy can properly hide his scummy nature. Other characters pepper the scenery and feature memorable performances even in the smallest of parts. The humour that eventuates from Marty's temporal culture-shock is also generally decent, especially as he uses his futuristic smarts to outwit his enemies and make for memorable moments such as escaping from Biff and his cronies or the (admittedly questionable) moment where he invents rock-'n'-roll.

Though Back to the Future tends to invoke science-fiction as a means to a comedic end more so than a fascinating concept in its own right, that doesn't mean that it skimps on inventive creations. Having the time machine here be a DeLorean is an inspired choice, especially when the need to have it reach a high speed and use a significant power source serve as major factors in some incredibly tense and well-timed sequences. Images such as flaming tire-tracks and fading photographs are simple but serve to give the film its own undeniable sense of personality. That also goes for Alan Silvestri's masterful background score, which doesn't exactly go for anything wildly experimental but that's because it doesn't need to. It is the ideal exemplification of everything that makes Back to the Future great - it's straightforward, sure, but it's just done so darned well that it doesn't matter. The more triumphant strains of the film's iconic main theme, whether played with full-orchestra bombast or goosebump-inducing solo strings, definitely make for the most delicious icing on an extremely sumptuous cake. As one of the most beloved films of the 1980s, the temptation to develop a contrarian hatred of it is an especially strong one, but fortunately the film is strong enough to overcome that in just about every regard. While I guess the comedy tends to be more clever than laugh-out-loud, that's a minor problem for a film that holds up very well considering how I haven't seen it since I was Marty's age.

4

[Iroquois]

#657 - Back to the Future Part II
Robert Zemeckis, 1989

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/10/151020_FUT_back-to-the-future-2-hoverboard.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg

A teenage boy and an old scientist travel to the future to solve a problem only for a bitter old man to steal their time machine in order to manipulate history to his benefit.

The original Back to the Future was such a well-crafted example of blockbuster escapism that crafting any kind of follow-up would prove quite the challenge. Back to the Future Part II, which was shot simultaneously with concluding episode Back to the Future Part III, at least gives it quite the try by building a continuation that involves a familiar time-travel trope; that of a person using their knowledge of the future to change their past for the better. The film picks up where the first one left off, with Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) and Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) traveling to the distant future of 2015 in the hopes of resolving a problem with Marty's future family. Along the way, Marty acquires an almanac full of sports statistics that he intends to bring back to 1985 and use for financial gain. Unfortunately, Marty's plan results in embittered former bully Biff Tannen (Thomas J. Wilson) catching on to his time-travel shenanigans; to this end, Biff decides to steal the DeLorean and give the sports almanac to his teenage self, thus guaranteeing himself financial success. From there, the plot becomes about Doc and Marty not only putting together the pieces but also trying to figure out how to stop Biff from succeeding in his ruthless scheme.

I've written before about how there are sequels that threaten to contradict the logic established in the source film, yet I've also noted how doing so does not automatically result in a film being bad. Back to the Future Part II is arguably another example of this, with its initial plot about Doc and Marty (and Marty's girlfriend Jennifer, though her near-total lack of relevance to the plot shows a lack of foresight on the part of writers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale) coming across as extremely unnecessary and ill-advised, especially considering Doc's professed interest in not misusing time-travel for personal benefits. Of course, the flimsy reasoning behind the plot (and the continuous examples of how it invalidates the original film's internal logic) are barely felt as the film progresses through a recognisable series of time-travel vignettes ranging from the film's colourful concept of 2015 to the Biff-altered dystopia of 1985 before returning to the original film's 1955 setting. If anything, the problem is that the film has trouble maintaining the same level of narrative momentum that made the original so great, especially when it spends a bit too much time on Marty very slowly realising that 1985 looks just a little bit different than he remembered it. One could also pick apart the decision to start the film off with the unforgettable 2015 sequence before being made to rehash the finale of the original film by, well, setting it during the finale of the original film (even if the lax time-travel rules established in the series do guarantee some degree of unpredictability as to how events will unfold).

Just as the original Back to the Future made its improbable premise work thanks to a blend of impressive art direction and a comedic angle driven mainly by solid characterisation, so too does Back to the Future Part II compensate for its various narrative shortcomings. The scenes depicted in the 2015 section of the film have understandably become the stuff of legend because of how vividly they depict a cartoonish yet vaguely plausible future, filling the frames with outlandish predictions for what will constitute food, entertainment, and history in the decades following the film's release. Fox and Lloyd once again manage to bring back the same blend of straight-faced anguish and conflicted enthusiasm respectively, even if the former's role here is ultimately defined by one very informed insecurity about being called "chicken" while the latter's eccentricity is tempered by one very sudden sense of responsibility towards the usage of his admittedly dangerous technology. Other performances are understandably limited; Lea Thompson doesn't get too much more to do as either Marty's heavily-aged mother in 2015 or his heavily-enhanced mother in alternate-1985. Wilson, on the other hand, once again gets the opportunity to chew some serious scenery as he plays several different versions of Biff ranging from his familiar teenage bully self to his cranky old man self and (most notably) his megalomaniac alternate-1985 self.

While Back to the Future Part II is most definitely an example of diminishing returns, it's not like it had much chance against its iconic predecessor. At the very least, its imaginative depiction of a not-too-distant future has carried its reputation as a superior piece of work to the Western-themed Part III. There's also something to be said in the ways that it attempts to graft a new storyline onto the original film in a way that does not feel obtrusive and does admittedly result in the odd impressive moment (such as one instance where two different Doc Browns carry on a conversation regardless of the plausibility of such a situation). The same capacity for science-fiction that is not so much ingenious as clever shines through enough so that the resulting film at least makes for pleasant entertainment regardless of how little sense it makes. If anything, the thing that makes Back to the Future Part II work is that it makes just enough sense so as to not drag an audience out of the picture, and even if it does, it's still got quite the captivating visuals to help us forget (and, of course, Alan Silvestri's iconic score). Only recommended to people who've seen the original, of course.

3.5

[nebbit]

I :love: the Back to the future movies :yup:

[Nope1172]

I'm actually in the minority who enjoys BTTF 2 more that the original

[cricket]

I remember not caring too much for Back to the Future II, but I don't remember the movie itself. Another watch is definitely required.

Saw Johnny Guitar recently and felt the same way you did.

[Iroquois]

#658 - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Andrew Dominik, 2007

https://filmgrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/01-jesse-at-window1.png

Based on the true story of notorious American outlaw Jesse James as he attempts to settle down following a major train robbery.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford follows legendary outlaw Jesse James (Brad Pitt) as he plans on giving up his infamous career in order to settle down with his family after one last job. Of course, that plan is complicated by the fact that his one last job has to be pulled with a varied group of inexperienced would-be outlaws, the most notable of which ends up being a gormless young hayseed named Robert Ford (Casey Affleck), who insinuates himself into the gang along with his brother Charlie (Sam Rockwell). After the train job goes off, the naive yet friendly Robert does his best to stay close to Jesse even when various factors serve to complicate matters, whether it's the possibility of former comrades ratting out Jesse to the authorities or the conflict that brews between Jesse's cousin (Jeremy Renner) and an erstwhile associate (Paul Schneider). All the while, his growing connection to the Ford brothers proves a source of support even as things threaten to fall apart around him, especially when the title portends to Robert's inevitable betrayal of the man that he grew up idolising obsessively.

If Dominik's break-through feature Chopper was a short and brutish exercise in depicting pulpy crime tales that were embellished by their author/protagonist, then The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford proves to be quite the antithesis as it provides a slow and somewhat meditative portrait of one of the Wild West's most notorious outlaws whose attitude towards his crimes is one of resignation rather than pride. To this end, it introduces Robert Ford as a deuteragonist who is far more complicated than his initial appearance as a wide-eyed devotee of Jesse might suggest; this much is especially true when Robert is contrasted against his brother Charlie, whose desire to seek a happy medium between all parties is constantly thwarted. Though Pitt is easily the most famous face in the film, this doesn't stop Jesse from being remains a somewhat enigmatic presence no matter how much the mellifluous Barry Lyndon-like narration may describe his physical flaws or idiosyncratic ways of thinking. As a result, Affleck ends up proving the closest thing there is to a protagonist; as Robert, he must undergo a journey from eager wannabe to heavily-conflicted assassin. Even with both characters' fates spelled out by the title, it's easy to find one's self drawn into Affleck's resentful journey as he sees through the myth surrounding his hero and finds himself disappointed, even as Rockwell proves a much more flexible foil to the legendary Jesse.

Walter Hill's The Long Riders had already milked Jesse James' story for some fairly straightforward revisionist thrills, so there really was nowhere else for this film to go but pure deconstruction. Any moments of tension or excitement are flatly undercut in one way or another, whether it's the actual train robbery or a shoot-out that takes place in a cramped bedroom. This can work against the film as it gets a bit too caught up in seemingly ancillary sub-plots, especially the one involving Renner and Schneider. Some may find certain sequences a bit too drawn-out for their own good, such as a tense dinner-table conversation between Jesse and the Ford brothers. The film is lent considerable visual flair by veteran cinematographer Roger Deakins, who not only provides his usual techniques (such as a distinctive use of high-contrast lighting balances) but also works outside his professional comfort zone in providing scenes that are custom-designed to evoke antiquated photographs. The score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis once again involves the same haunting use of atonal strings and twanging guitars that the duo put to good use in John Hillcoat's The Proposition. While The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford isn't quite on the level of Hillcoat's film, it's still a dependable example of a revisionist Western. Though it may tread familiar ground and feel longer than it really needs to be, it is fortunately buoyed by a solid ensemble cast, some artfully prosaic writing, and some appropriately striking visual and aural contributions.

3.5

[Iroquois]

#659 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Steven Spielberg, 2001

http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5392/73/16x9/960.jpg

In a distant future where artificial beings are commonplace, an experimental android designed to look and behave like an ordinary human boy is given to a family whose own son is seriously ill.

Started by Stanley Kubrick and finished by Steven Spielberg, much has been made of how A.I. Artificial Intelligence comes across as a film torn between the vastly different sensibilities of two legendary directors. The basic premise could certainly have gone either way, taking place in a future of debatable quality - global warming and other disasters have drastically altered the planet (with New York City being almost completely submerged), but other technologies have still progressed considerably. As you can probably tell from the title, the film is primarily concerned with the concept of artificial beings, with many of them being commonplace within the world of the film. Of course, one robot-designing visionary (William Hurt) is interested in improving the design and decides that he wants to create a robot that is capable of feeling love for a human. To this end, he creates a robot (Haley Joel Osment) named David, who he decides to give to an employee (Sam Robards) whose own wife (Frances O'Connor) is distraught over their son being in a coma. Though the parents try to accept David and his earnest desire to give and receive unconditional love, things are complicated when their actual son recovers and only get worse from there, eventually leading to David going on a quixotic quest into the outside world to find the Blue Fairy from Pinocchio so as to become a real boy and therefore earn his human mother's love.

One can easily write off A.I. Artificial Intelligence as another reiteration of Spielberg at his most emotionally banal thanks to its earnest tale of a wide-eyed young boy working against the odds to earn the love of a distant family figure. Such a subject doesn't exactly seem like the ideal fit for the dispassionate perfectionism associated with Kubrick either. The film is arguably compromised as a result, but it's a testament to the material that the the film still ends up being rather solid. It does take a while for the story to kick in as the robots are set up through Hurt speechifying to a rapt audience before watching an extended series of scenes where an unflinchingly cheery David tries to acclimatise to his host family, whose reactions to his presence vary wildly but never quite lapse into unconditional acceptance. There are some predictable moments here and there, such as David having some severe malfunctions that eventually lead to his mother choosing to abandon him in the wilderness (instead of taking him to be flat-out destroyed), but they are still sold fairly well as Osment can move between being sweetly oblivious to his innocent but unsettling behaviours and naturally childlike distress when he is subjected to traumas such as being bullied by human children or being abandoned by an extremely reluctant and sorrowful parent for reasons that he is programmed to be incapable of understanding. While the first act is a bit of a slog, it's paid off by the second act, which sees David enter a world that is far different from his host family's expensive mansion.

If the first act is Spielberg playing to his stereotypes, then the second act definitely feels like the man is channeling Kubrick. Spielberg creates a number of set-pieces that use the late master's visual trademarks to bring the film's vivid dystopia to life. Whether it's neon-drenched red light districts or fiery carnivals, the scenery serves as an appropriately nightmarish backdrop against which David's adventures with his robotic teddy-bear buddy take place. They are populated with a variety of characters that mainly consist of sympathetic robots (the most prominent of which is Jude Law as "Gigolo Joe", a handsome pleasure-model who ends up crossing paths with David and joining him on his quest) and far less sympathetic humans (such as Brendan Gleeson as the man who runs a robot-destroying carnival for fun and profit). Though there is no denying the Kubrickian nature of several scenes (especially the scenes where Joe "works"), there are the odd moments where Spielberg bleeds through, such as one sequence involving an information machine embodied by an Einstein-like cartoon (voiced by Robin Williams, no less). The retro-futurism strikes a tricky balance between science-fiction and fairytale, with the eye-catching art direction is matched by the various effects used to bring the robots and their mechanical innards to life.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence may not be a classic, but it's certainly a lot better than I expected it to be. The first act is pretty dry and the film as a whole does feel like it goes on for a bit too long; it reached a point where it seemed like it was wrapping up but I checked the timer and it still had about twenty or thirty minutes to go. For those of you who've seen it, you should know that I actually kind of liked the ending despite its very left-field development and somewhat awkward sentimentality (though the latter being undercut by the implications at least seems to be by design, I suppose). Though one can't help but wonder how this film might have turned out under Kubrick's sole supervision, Spielberg goes all-out in order to pay homage to his peer and weave together their disparate film-making idiosyncrasies. It doesn't quite work, as the attempts to mesh the styles only serve to magnify the flaws in Spielberg's approach, especially when he deliberately tries to evoke amusement at the robots and their world. Given how inventive the visuals on display tend to be, it's a shame that John Williams provides a very standard-sounding score to go along with them. Time will tell whether it really holds up, but there's certainly enough strength to the writing and technical side of things to earn at least some goodwill.

3

[Iroquois]

#660 - At the Circus
Edward Buzzell, 1939

https://travsd.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/np1.jpg

When a circus owner is put under pressure by debtors, two of his more reckless subordinates seek out an attorney to help save the circus.

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that making Duck Soup the first Marx Brothers film that I ever watched was all but guaranteed to make it so that every film of theirs I watched after that would guarantee diminishing returns, even with their other big-name films like A Night at the Opera or Horse Feathers. As such, it's probably no surprise that getting into their later films from the late-'30s and early-'40s would quite possibly yield the most diminished returns of all. The Marx Brothers may be comedic legends, but that doesn't mean that their films weren't prone to following a rather rigid formula where the only real variations between films ended up being the setting and character names. Groucho's the shifty wise-cracker full of one-liners, Harpo's the mute clown pulling off all sorts of sight gags, and Chico functions as an intermediary who plays off the both of them in whatever way is necessary. The plots were also formulaic as they tended to involve a variety of familiar factors such as a greedy villain, a photogenic young romantic couple who served as the good guys and who were helped in their goals by the brothers, musical numbers, a bombastic set-piece for the finale, and so forth. At the Circus invokes just about every single one of these factors in telling a tale that involves a failing circus and a plan being hatched by the brothers to have it be unwittingly financed by a wealthy dowager (Marx regular Margarent Dumont) in order to save it from being liquidated.

Considering the era in which the Marx Brothers were releasing their films, it's perhaps not too surprising that they don't really aim for anything more than just some straight laughs, but At the Circus is pretty bereft of them. There is the occasional clever moment, such as Groucho making an aside to the audience as to how he's going to get out of a tricky situation without violating the Hays Code, but it feels so dry for the most part that the film is often left floundering between clever quips. While Groucho's quick-witted nature definitely provides the bulk of the amusement, I find that Harpo's antics tend to grate on me more and more with each new film of theirs that I watch to the point where even his decision to just play lilting melodies on a harp for several straight minutes lacks any charm. Even the promise of an appropriately all-out finale that involves setting up a three-ring circus within the grounds of Dumont's palatial mansion (complete with an orchestra getting cut adrift and a loose gorilla) does little to stop this from being an extremely dull effort from a comedy trio whose reputation is clearly built on films other than this one.

1.5

[nebbit]

#659 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Steven Spielberg, 2001

http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5392/73/16x9/960.jpg

3
I really like this movie :blush:

[TheUsualSuspect]

I really like this movie :blush:


I really don't. :(

[nebbit]

I really don't. :(
I know, you are in the majority :yup:

[Iroquois]

#661 - Seven Samurai
Akira Kurosawa, 1954

http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/5d/809a308f8f11e1bcc4123138165f92/file/5-things-you-might-not-know-about-akira-kurosawa-seven-samurai.jpg

A village of impoverished farmers hires a group of wandering samurai to protect them from a ruthless clan of bandits.

The plot of Seven Samurai follows some poor farmers trying to figure out how to deal with a bandit clan threatening to commit their yearly raid on the farmers' village. After consulting with the village elder, a small group of farmers heads to the nearest town in order to hire a group of samurai to fight against the bandits. Though their meager reward (no money, just food and board until the job is done) initially draws nothing but derision from the local mercenaries, they have a stroke of luck when they encounter an ageing ronin (Takashi Shimura) who volunteers his services despite the lack of payment because, well, it's the right thing to do. He proves an intriguing enough figure that he is able to attract even more samurai to the cause, all of whom cover a variety of recognisable archetypes - the eager novice (isao Kimura), the dispassionate master (Seiji Miyaguchi), the affable sidekicks (Daisuke Katô and Yoshio Inaba), the cheerful comic relief (Minoru Chiaki), and most memorably the disrespectful wannabe (Toshiro Mifune). Their motives vary as well, whether it's the promise of adventure, the chance to refine one's skill, or simply looking for a place to belong. Of course, things end up being complicated well before the bandits show up as the naturally fearful villagers treat their newfound protectors with suspicion and distrust...

I think when it comes to reviewing films that have earned such immense reputations as this one has, I feel like I have to at least try to think of them in negative terms so as to prove something at least somewhat new and interesting to say. Seven Samurai is over sixty years old, three-and-a-half hours in length, black-and-white, subtitled, not nearly as action-packed as its simple plot might suggest, and the deliberately theatrical style of acting from every player is bound to alienate anyone who might expect a certain degree of realistic nuance. This marks the third time I've watched it in a decade - the last time was two years ago, the time before that was way back in 2007 - so it's a classic that I don't exactly feel like I can bust out every so often. The main motivation for this viewing was that I had the chance to see it in a theatrical context, and while it is a generally good film I would not consider it totally essential to watch the film in a theatre. Be that as it may, Seven Samurai holds up very well between these rather infrequent viewings. Yeah, the acting does come across as a bit stilted or overdone, especially when it comes to watching Mifune's manic fool devour the scenery in many different ways, but honestly it's too damned charming to watch him work. If anything, Mifune is the stand-out here as the wild man who could very easily have been annoying due to his clownish antics and vitriolic monologues, but he gets more than enough depth to justify his superficial immaturity (such as his angry monologue about the farmers' true nature or a certain scene taking place in front of an old mill). Each characters does get enough character traits to sufficiently define them through moments great and small, while the actors playing them do commendable jobs in bringing them to life.

Though Seven Samurai is probably a bit too drawn-out to properly qualify as an action movie, what action it does feature is handled with considerable skill. It may spend a lot of time on set-ups (most notably all the scenes where the samurai plot out their defence, whether it's by training the locals to wield bamboo spears or surveying the surrounding locations), but that only means that it results in good pay-offs. One can definitely identify how much it serves as a blueprint for many a recognisable action film for reasons that go beyond its utilitarian plot and colourful cast of characters playing off one another. Slow-motion deaths are probably the most immediately obvious innovation one can identify, though it's also pretty impressive how Kurosawa can pace any scenes of violence (when he opts to show violence, that is). Scenes range from one-on-one duels to stealthy ambushes to all-out battles, most of which are captured without the use of background music (not like the music's necessarily bad but many scenes really do feel more effective when there isn't any music) and vary in terms of how elegantly or realistically they unfold.

Despite its reputation as the grandfather of modern action movies (to the point where I could pick apart ways in which other movies openly or subtly paid homage to it - Mifune's sticking several swords into a mound of dirt in preparation for the final battle definitely felt like a precursor to Chow Yun-fat hiding spare pistols in potted plants during John Woo's A Better Tomorrow), it manages to attach a considerable amount of tragedy to many scenes of violence. This is even after the fight scenes start off as awesome (case in point - Miyaguchi's introductory scene where a non-lethal duel with an arrogant warrior soon proves to be the latter's undoing) but as time wears on and the numbers of the good guys start to dwindle, the true cost of what's going on bubbles to the surface. That's enough to make up for certain plot holes that start to pop up after a few viewings, such as one samurai's usage of a longbow that you'd think would figure more prominently into their strategy, especially when the bandits themselves are established as having not only bows but rifles.

Attempting to actually find serious fault with Seven Samurai beyond matters of an extremely subjective perspective are a bit difficult. Even though it indulges that hoariest of action-movie clichés by having the young and handsome Kimura begin a secret romantic tryst with the daughter of one very overprotective farmer, there are enough particulars at play so that it manages to come across as a platonic ideal for the trope rather than vacuous cliché. With a film of this length, one can always question whether it really needs to be as long as it is (especially when Western-themed remake The Magnificent Seven is almost half the length of Kurosawa's film) but I'd say that it more than earns its right to be epic. Even elements that threaten to date the film such as the melodramatic performances or the jaunty background score don't prove to be significant distractions. It works as a solid combination of character study, action thriller, and post-war allegory (which is understood most prominently through the bandits' usage of rifles against their sword-wielding opponents). The film's reputation should say volumes, but I'll reiterate anyway - this film is the very definition of essential viewing. Anyone with even a passing interest in cinema, whether as high art or escapist entertainment, definitely owes it to themselves to at least try watching this. Love it or hate it, it's definitely a rewarding experience.

5

[TheUsualSuspect]

I was in awe the first time I watched this. Simply beautiful filmmaking and influential beyond comprehension.

[Iroquois]

#662 - Warm Bodies
Jonathan Levine, 2013

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/warm-bodies/images/b/b7/Nicholas-hoult-warm-bodies.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130213131516

In the aftermath of a zombie apocalypse, a male zombie experiences a radical change to his existence when he eats the brain of a human and develops an attraction to his victim's girlfriend.

The market for zombie entertainment is considerably saturated to the point where even the comedic variations on the normally-horrific sub-genre are also starting to become afflicted by fatigue. Though Edgar Wright's Shaun of the Dead was hardly the first zombie comedy, it definitely proved groundbreaking enough for other people to try putting out their own parodic takes on the mindless flesh-eaters. Much like Wright's film, Jonathan Levine's Warm Bodies is a romantic comedy that takes place during the zombie apocalypse - however, it offers a distinct variation on that it makes it about the relationship between a human and a zombie. This is at least explained away by the world-building that draws a line between the everyday zombies who still have some semblance of intelligence (yet will still go after humans wherever possible) and the "boneys", which are extremely rotten and skeletal zombies that are only driven by their killer instinct (much like the feral ghouls from the Fallout game series). Nicholas Hoult plays one of the regular zombies whose rich yet nervous internal monologue is a far cry from the lumbering corpse that he is in reality. When he joins a group of other zombies on a search for humans to feed on, he encounters a group of human scavengers. After killing one (Dave Franco) and eating his brain, Hoult starts to develop an affection for his victim's girlfriend (Teresa Palmer) due to his ingesting of Franco's memories and proceeds to rescue her from his undead comrades. He brings her back to his makeshift home inside a passenger plane and, though she is understandably distrustful of him, she gradually warms to him. Meanwhile, her father (John Malkovich), who just so happens to be in charge of the human resistance, is willing to stop at nothing to find her...

I think that a film that's primarily classified as a comedy (even if it's arguably parodying a separate genre and thus ends up taking said genre's conventions seriously) can get away with not generating much in the way of laughter if the rest of it is handled well enough, and Warm Bodies definitely doesn't strike me as a bad movie when all is said and done. The twists on the zombie lore are interesting enough, but the same can't really be said for the fairly standard plot that only offers the slightest variations on familiar rom-com tropes. They don't delve into totally predictable cliché but they never rise above their station to become truly interesting in their own right. There are some fairly capable performers in the cast and none of them turn in truly bad performances (except possibly Malkovich, who really does seem like he's going through the motions here). The production value's not too bad and things are kept rolling along at a decent pace across its brief running time, but there doesn't feel like a whole lot to recommend to it. It's got heart and it doesn't go overboard in painting Hoult's zombie hero as a hipster (even when it justifies his preference for vinyl records by saying that it sounds better to zombie ears) but I'd hardly call it essential.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#663 - A Few Good Men
Rob Reiner, 1992

http://91.207.61.14/m/uploads/v_p_images/1992/01/23_10_screenshot.png

When two U.S. Marines are accused of murdering one of their comrades, a team of Naval attorneys is assigned to defend them.

A Few Good Men is another one of those films that's leaked into the cultural consciousness to the point where sitting down and actually watching it feels like a formality more so than a genuine cinematic experience. It's got a decent enough plot as far as legal dramas go thanks to its concerns with a military trial, especially when the seemingly straightforward case of two Marines murdering a third at Guantanamo Bay is complicated by the fact by not just their motives but also the origins of said motives. The defence counsel consists of a mismatched group in Tom Cruise's cocky legal hotshot who's never actually had to enter a courtroom, Demi Moore's upstanding professional who's looking to do right by her clients, and Kevin Pollak's morally conflicted individual who definitely seems to think his clients are guilty and is not all that enthused about defending them. The proceedings put Cruise up against a friendly rival (Kevin Bacon) who shows no mercy when it comes to prosecuting. Meanwhile, the colonel (Jack Nicholson) in charge of Guantanamo consults with his subordinates (J.T. Walsh and Kiefer Sutherland) over how best to handle the crisis on their hands.

There's nothing too spectacular about A Few Good Men but that doesn't make it bad. Rob Reiner's early career definitely showed a lot of versatility across multiple films thanks to his handling of richly developed characters, which makes him a good choice for directing Aaron Sorkin's dialogue-heavy screenplay. Nobody here comes across as out-of-place - not even Cruise, who proves himself fairly worthy of the material because his dedication to his craft is enough to compensate for his potentially alienating A-list status. Nicholson doesn't have all that much screen-time here but he definitely makes the most of what he gets in a way that also compensates for his iconic presence, earning the film's defining moment in the process. Other capable performers fill out the roles well and definitely don't draw negative attention. Though the fact that I can't really think of anything overly negative to say about A Few Good Men should signal that it's really good, it's also a sign that I can't really say too much that's overly positive either. It's about as dependable as a film can get with its reasonably compelling legal drama and the big names that demonstrate how they managed to become big names, but it doesn't exactly feel like a classic. Paradoxically, it proves very watchable but it definitely doesn't feel like I really need to watch it again.

3

[Iroquois]

#664 - Sugar Hill
Paul Maslansky, 1974

https://antifilmschoolsite.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sugar-hill-crop-1.jpg

When her boyfriend is killed by a group of gangsters, a woman turns to voodoo and raises an army of zombies to help her take revenge.

Delving into obscure grindhouse cinema beyond the most beloved cult classics proves to be quite the gamble because you never know if you're going to get an obscure piece of fun or a film that deserves to be forgotten. Sugar Hill came out during the early years of the blaxploitation boom and it obviously wants to distinguish itself from all the other low-rent crime dramas that use revenge as the drive behind their extremely basic plots. To this end, it has its titular protagonist decide to get revenge on the criminals who murdered her boyfriend by contracting a local voodoo practitioner, who puts her in touch with the mysterious forces at play. As a result, Sugar Hill gets herself an army of voodoo zombies that are raised from the dead to do her bidding, and so begins a whole movie worth of supernatural vengeance. To be fair, I do appreciate that this film attempted to do something different to the usual blaxploitation films and it definitely seems like the premise has some potential due to its inclusion of the paranormal - that's what made Sugar Hill seem halfway promising.

Unfortunately, the problem is that Sugar Hill fails to provide much in the way of genuine entertainment. I'd even go so far as to say that it fails to provide anything in the way of genuine entertainment. While you can sort of accept that '70s blaxploitation is naturally going to have some fairly unimpressive production values, you kind of hope that it'll at least prove to be fun in one way or another. Sugar Hill isn't fun at all. It's an incredibly dry and boring film that runs the blaxploitation playbook page by page. The problem is that its main gimmick of the heroine getting her revenge using voodoo ultimately doesn't work. Whereas films like Coffy or Foxy Brown showcase the heroine taking revenge on her own and ultimately generate some tension thanks to her putting her life on the line, Sugar Hill lacks any serious tension due to its heroine being able to take down all her enemies using voodoo, which mainly involves zombies with the occasional variation such as the use of a doll. Even the warning that doing so will force her to sell her soul to Baron Samedi doesn't seem to mean much to the rest of the film. The use of zombies is neutered by the near-total lack of violence featured in the film - though some villains' demises are implied to be horrific (one of them gets fed to pigs, after all), there is barely anything remotely resembling the pulpy thrills associated with your typical blaxploitation flick. What kind of blaxploitation film has a PG rating? As a result, there is nothing to recommend about Sugar Hill. The nicest thing about it is that it's at least kind of short, but that doesn't seem to matter when it can't generate anything of even the slightest worth. Only worthwhile for blaxploitation die-hards; even then, it still seems to lack just about everything that makes blaxploitation films worth watching.

1

[Iroquois]

#665 - Go West
Edward Buzzell, 1940

http://www.alifeatthemovies.com/images/2010/10/go-west.jpg

A trio of fools travel to the Wild West and get caught up in a dispute over ownership of a valuable tract of land.

I guess you could sum up every Marx Brothers movie with a single sentence. The Marx Brothers run a small country, the Marx Brothers work at a prestigious college, the Marx Brothers interfere with an opera company...you get the idea. Though things started off with bizarre titles like Horse Feathers or Duck Soup, eventually the titles just got much more straightforward, and that's how we ended up with Go West as the title for the movie where the Marx Brothers...go west. It once again involves the core trio of Groucho, Chico, and Harpo as they all board a train headed for the West with the intention of seeking anything better than what they're leaving behind. This naturally plants them right in the middle of a land deal that ticks a lot of the usual narrative devices common your average Marx Brothers movie - the young couple whose struggle provides the crux of the narrative, the extremely determined and greedy antagonist, the conflict involving the acquisition of money, etc. I know you're not really supposed to watch Marx Brothers movies for the plot - what matters is everything else.

While Go West is hardly going to be much of a stand-out as far as Marx Brothers movies go, it's at least a step up from the blandness of the brothers' previous outing, At the Circus. The Western genre is one that is eternally ripe for parody and even the waning comedic success of the Marx Brothers isn't immune to the comedic potential that the Western offered even in the late-1930s. There are a lot of the usual tropes being reduced to shallow mockeries such as bar brawls with murderous bandits or safe-destroying robberies. Of course, one can easily find that the brothers' interactions with a tribe of Native Americans don't exactly fly these days (especially when they don't yield any laughs anyway). There's even a suitably Marx Brothers climax where the trio commandeer a train and do their best to shut it down, which does end up being a genuinely entertaining sequence. Unfortunately, it comes on the tail-end of some disappointingly standard Marx Brothers antics and thus proves one of the very few saving graces about the film at large. Just like At the Circus, it's only really recommended to major fans of the brothers, though it's arguably better than that thanks to just how easy the Western is to parody.

2

[Iroquois]

#666 - Bram Stoker's Dracula
Francis Ford Coppola, 1992

http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5239/15/16x9/1200.jpg

During the Victorian era, an English lawyer meets with a Transylvanian nobleman who is revealed to be a vampire.

I took a stab at reading Bram Stoker's Dracula a few years ago for academic purposes but I never managed to finish it, though I always intended to do so. Of course, that intention has been diminished somewhat by my viewing of Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation, which seeks to translate the iconic Gothic novel into an appropriately decadent early-1990s film complete with lurid colour schemes and dramatic camerawork. I haven't really bothered to watch much Coppola outside of his Big Four (with the exceptions being the underwhelming Rumble Fish, the tolerable The Godfather Part III, and the haven't-seen-it-since-the-age-of-seven Jack) but it sounded like Bram Stoker's Dracula might just be one of the most worthwhile films he'd made since Apocalypse Now. Its blending of supernatural horror and torrid romance proved an initially intriguing combination but that intrigue was definitely worn down as the film played out. Bram Stoker's Dracula ultimately proves a bit of a frustrating experience because the vivid nature of its technique is so often undermined by the ways in which the film opts to handle its interpersonal element.

Things start off alright with a fantastic prologue before jumping to the hilariously miscast Keanu Reeves as he plays the Englishman tasked with looking into the affairs of a Count Dracula (Gary Oldman). While Reeves is effectively trapped by his ancient-looking master, Oldman himself soon sets about heading to England in search of fresh blood. This puts him in touch with Reeves' fiancée (Winona Ryder), who just so happens to look exactly like the woman whose suicide led to Oldman becoming a vampire. Some more supernatural shenanigans take place before the renowned Dr. Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) is brought in to handle affairs regarding the vampire scourge now plaguing London. It's enough plot to guarantee my interest (when else am I likely to see Richard E. Grant and Tom Waits share a scene?) but the lurid visual aesthetic only does so much when it comes to building an effective film. Blending of various different colours, to say nothing of the ways in which shadows play across the wall, definitely makes for a consistently interesting style that also extends to the sharp costume design and production value.

Of course, Bram Stoker's Dracula is arguably undone by the haphazard quality of its cast. Reeves is an easy one to single out thanks to a stiffness that goes beyond his usual acting stereotype, but Ryder isn't much better as she gets even more screentime as the Victorian lady who falls prey to Oldman's slick maneuvers. Given how much the film didn't exactly skimp on British (or convicingly British-sounding) performers for the rest of its production, sticking these two in some prominent roles does feel like a bit of a misstep. Otherwise, everyone does well. Oldman channels career-sustaining menace as both the older Count and his much more affable younger self, while Hopkins chews considerable scenery as the heavily accented doctor whose expertise proves invaluable in defeating vampires. Even Grant and Waits get stuff to do in relatively minor roles, whether it's the former as a drug-addicted physician harbouring an unrequited love or the latter as a bug-eating servant of darkness whose raspy howl appropriately communicates his sycophancy and despair.

The aesthetic brilliance of Bram Stoker's Dracula certainly makes it worth an acknowledgment beyond the limitations of its story and performers. Costumes naturally alternate between silky European decadence and prim English stuffiness. Colours are strong and often balance red and blue in eye-boggling combinations. While Bram Stoker's Dracula is a sumptuous visual feast packed out with all sorts of period-appropriate detail, it still feels extremely straightforward even as it tries to mix complex romantic plotlines with a more palatable horror story about a vampire. It arguably hasn't aged all that well, but it's such an obvious extravaganza that one can't help but pay it some attention. It may not be scary to your typical modern viewer, but being scary is arguably the least of this film's concerns. It's bringing an old tale to the screen in a way that hasn't quite been seen before and it shows underneath the widely varying ability of each performer. Whether such an experience is worthy of your attention is debatable, but I think if you have any interest in film as a purely artistic medium then you might find something of worth here - even if it isn't the plot or acting.

3

[mark f]

What kind of blaxploitation film has a PG rating?
The Legend of *igger Charley
Boss *igger
Blacula
Scream Blacula Scream
Cleopatra Jones
The Spook Who Sat by the Door
Black Eye
Together Brothers
Darktown Strutters
Sugar Baby
The Last Dragon (PG-13)

[Iroquois]

Fair point (and presumably one that's posted in the knowledge that I was being rhetorical), but how many of those films are any good? The only one of those I've seen is The Last Dragon (which I covered in this thread a while back), and while it wasn't outright awful like Sugar Hill it was still a pretty flawed film.

[cricket]

I really enjoyed your review of The Seven Samurai, a masterpiece if there ever was one.

I thought Warm Bodies had an interesting concept, but I would've liked to have seen a more serious, adult film, if that would even be possible.

[Iroquois]

#667 - Primal Fear
Gregory Hoblit, 1996

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Primal-Fear-edward-norton-147607_550_362.jpg

When an archbishop is brutally murdered, a high-profile attorney offers to work pro bono to defend the timid young altar-boy suspected of the murder.

On the surface, Primal Fear does not look particularly great. Part of the problem might be that I did know the film's big twist ahead of watching it so of course my perspective was going to be altered as a result. Still, I figured that if the film was good enough then it wouldn't be dependent on the twist. Primal Fear has a fairly simple set-up in that it centres on a renowned clergyman dying a gory death, seemingly at the hands of the mild-mannered altar boy (Edward Norton) who is seen running away from the scene of the crime while covered in blood. Enter Richard Gere as a hotshot lawyer who offers to defend Norton for free, drawing the ire of various players (especially Laura Linney as an ex-girlfriend who ends up taking the opportunity to prosecute Norton in order to spite Gere). Underneath his cocky attitude, Gere sincerely wants to do right by whoever his client is and works with his team in order to either determine Norton's innocence or at least provide a plausible defence in case he really is guilty.

Knowing the final twist does undercut the effect of Primal Fear quite a bit, which is a bit of a shame since there's not that much more to the proceedings. There's a decent collection of actors in the mix to elevate this very standard material. Norton earned an Oscar nomination for his turn as the extremely unlikely prime suspect who does more than just play a mumbly hayseed, while Gere proves reasonably convincing as a lawyer whose superficial smarminess hides some surprising depth. The rest of the cast is serviceable enough as they play a number of extremely rote roles such as the no-nonsense judge (Alfre Woodard), the vindictive prosecutor (Linney), Gere's put-upon assistants (Maura Tierney and Andre Braugher), or even the businessman (John Mahoney) with a vested interest in seeing Norton die. Unfortunately, the solid cast is basically all that the film really has going for it as it proceeds through a none-too-remarkable blend of legal drama and psychological thriller that hasn't aged all that well.

2

[Iroquois]

#668 - Cube
Vincenzo Natali, 1997

http://theredlist.com/media/database/settings/cinema/1990-2000/cube-/002-cube-theredlist.png

A handful of strangers wake up inside a giant maze built out of cube-shaped rooms and must work together in order to survive.

Cube is an exercise in low-budget ingenuity that uses its limitations to its advantage as it crafts one very tight piece of sci-fi horror. The premise alone is very unsettling; waking up in a mysterious situation with no memory of how you got there is bad enough, but the Cube really is something else. Between the lack of food and water, the fact that the maze is filled with thousands of rooms that cover three dimensions rather than the standard two, and the randomly-placed booby-traps that sporadically appear in certain rooms, the Cube promises to be quite the horrifying experience. That's without factoring in the possibility that, despite the fact that you're being made to co-operate with total strangers, there's no way that you can truly trust them. This is the predicament facing the seemingly random collection of people who are dressed in monogrammed jumpsuits and dumped into the Cube within close proximity of one another. They end up fitting a number of survival-horror archetypes, such as the confident leader (Maurice Dean Wint), the shifty coward (David Hewlett), the old expert (Wayne Robson), the brainy problem-solver (Nicole de Boer), the conspiracy theorist (Nicky Guadagni), and the helpless innocent (Andrew Miller). The film then becomes about them trying to survive the Cube, whether it's by avoiding dangerous traps or trying to solve the mathematically-based logic on which the Cube is based.

Though it could very well have proved a potent basis for philosophical sci-fi, Cube decides to leave things deliberately vague by having characters ponder the nature of the Cube in between moments of narrative tension; even then, that falls by the wayside pretty quickly as the group is endangered from within by friction between its members. I do like it when the characters in a horror movie are up against a single threat to their collective safety only for the resulting tension between them to end up proving a significant threat on its own (my favourite example of this naturally being John Carpenter's The Thing). The film's detractors are usually quick to point out the apparently weak acting on display here, citing Wint in particular as an overly melodramatic offender whereas the rest of the cast is a bit too flat. While I can see where these complaints are coming from, I think they are sufficiently justified within the film's context. Being trapped in the Cube would take its toll on anyone's psyche (provided they lived long enough, of course) and these are supposed to be ordinary people who are trapped in an extremely horrible situation so I don't think the performances are weak enough to cause a major set-back. That much is down to the writing, which I think is generally smart enough to survive the occasional contrived development or clunky line of dialogue.

Cube does offer plenty of shocks in its brief running time, though some of them don't quite hold up a second time around; the most obvious example of this being the unbearably tense scene involving a room with a sound-activated trap, which is extremely nerve-wracking when watched once but not so much when watched twice. Certain late-stage reveals do make the film interesting to re-watch, plus the interpersonal drama still holds up anyway. One also has to admire how well the film compensates for its small scale by not only reusing the same cube-and-a-half set for pretty much the entire film (alternating the colour of the lighting in order to differentiate between rooms) but makes it so that even the poorly-aged CGI barely registers as a major flaw. While it's obviously not perfect, Cube provides quite the watchable experience. It may lose a little something on a repeat viewing as the more enigmatic aspects of the Cube and its unlucky prisoners become known to an audience (though I still haven't seen the other two Cube films that apparently explain the Cube's back-story) but there's still enough quality on display so that it proves a solid film.

3.5

[Iroquois]

#669 - Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Philip Kaufman, 1978

http://application.denofgeek.com/pics/film/snatchers78/02.jpg

A health inspector and his co-worker start to notice that people around them are acting strangely and work to unravel the mystery behind it.

Another contender for a remake that is equal or superior to its source (even if it's more of a new adaptation of the source novel than a straightforward remake), Invasion of the Body Snatchers also holds up on a second viewing. Having a good horror concept is usually enough to carry a film even when the shocks of an initial viewing wear off (especially when the film's most shocking moment has become the stuff of legend, if only because it admittedly looks ridiculous when taken out of context). Body-snatching and variations thereof do tend to make for an appropriately terrifying prospect. At first, it's something as simple as noticing that the people who are close to you have undergone radical personality changes and don't seem to be the same people that they were before (especially when normally vibrant and upbeat individuals become cold and emotionless). There's also the fact that the body-snatchers work their magic while their victims are sleeping, and the prospect of going to sleep and never waking up doesn't sound pleasant; a horror concept based on the idea that you must forgo a mundane yet vital activity like sleeping in order to keep yourself alive is always a potent one, even if such concepts have been run into the ground a bit in recent years. Assuming you survive long enough to figure out the truth of what's going on...what then? Who can you trust with this information? What do you do when more and more people become the enemy? Where can you run to? Where can you hide? How long can you go without sleep? Questions like that are the main reason why both the 1950s version and 1970s version of the story hold up very, very well.

Of course, in the case of the '70s version, the inclusion of a solid ensemble cast and the relatively chaotic filmmaking afforded by the period definitely serve as icing on one very disturbing cake. Donald Sutherland and Brooke Adams make for believable leads as the schlubby yet sharp-witted health inspector and his equally competent colleague respectively, while Jeff Goldblum and Veronica Cartwright (who would both go on to star in certain other sci-fi horror classics) make for good foils to the lead duo, though Goldblum does admittedly play to his trademark brand of charismatic neurosis (or is that neurotic charisma?). Leonard Nimoy is obviously best-known for playing the comically serious Mr. Spock on Star Trek, so seeing him not only play against type as an affable pop psychologist but also subvert his most famous role as an emotionally distant and coldly logical alien is a treat (especially since I'm pretty sure I first saw this film before seeing any of his Trek-related work, so I can say that it works both ways). These particular players may serve to seriously cement the film in its era, but I find that that works quite well. What really interests me is how best to interpret the subtext behind the creatures this time around. The '50s version was open-ended enough to suggest that the murderously hive-minded body-snatchers could serve as a metaphor for either the insidious infiltration of communist insurgents or the oppressive paranoia spurred on by the inception of McCarthyism. Being made in the late-'70s, I'm sure that there's a similarly ambiguous divide when one takes into account factors such as continued Cold War paranoia and post-Watergate fears of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. Also, there's a few jabs at New Age fads and beliefs, such as the irony in that Nimoy's cheery psychologist seems more concerned with his book launch running smoothly than the concerns of an emotionally distraught woman whose husband has become a body-snatcher.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers definitely has a strong story and the star power to back it up, though it arguably could have used a little trimming here or there. The effects used to depict the body-snatchers being "born", their victims "dying", or even the opening sequence depicting the alien life making its way to Earth still stand out; even seemingly goofy creations are handled well enough to come across as unsettling (case in point - the man-dog). The verité style of filmmaking that alternates between static formalism and quasi-documentarian Steadicam meshes well enough to provide an appropriately disorienting and discomforting experience even when depicting something as mundane as Sutherland trying to use a phone booth. The sound work also deserves a mention simply because of how horrifying the body-snatchers' cries of alarm sound. It may be a little on the long side and have the odd moment that threatens to either bore you or take you out of the proceedings, but Invasion of the Body Snatchers more than earns its reputation as not only a good remake but a good example of sci-fi horror. It hasn't gotten horribly dated either - if anything, the signs of its era only serve to grant it a distinctive personality all its own.

3.5

[Iroquois]

#670 - Incendies
Denis Villeneuve, 2010

http://www.slantmagazine.com/assets/film/incendies.jpg

After their mother's death, a pair of twins are made to unravel her dark and troubled past in the middle of the war-torn Middle East.

Man, this Villeneuve guy really doesn't like making nice movies, does he? I've only started to watch his films this year, but so far he's made movies about subjects as harrowing to watch as child abduction, the war on drugs, and evil doppelgangers. On the surface, Incendies almost sounds like it could have been an easier watch but I obviously knew better than to expect anything easy from Villeneuve. Incendies focuses on the adult twin children of a woman named Nawal who has immigrated from the Middle East (it's not specified exactly where and the cities mentioned by name tend to be fictitious) to French Canada. Nawal has recently died and the public notary for whom she worked has summoned her children Simon and Jeanne to read Nawal's last will and testament. Her final wishes request that her children deliver two letters that she had written; one is to be delivered to their father, while the other is to be delivered to their brother. While Simon stubbornly refuses to go through with it, Jeanne obliges and so the film divides into two storylines. One follows Jeanne as she travels to the Middle East with the intention of delivering the letters, while the other traces Nawal's tragedy-filled journey through the incredibly harsh reality of life during wartime.

I thought Incendies was going to be something special right from its opening slow-motion scenes set to the anguished crescendo of Radiohead's "You And Whose Army?" (which admittedly did undercut a later scene that also featured the song). The premise proves solid enough as the naturally-opposed twins must deal with a side of their mother that they never knew even as the film shows in excruciating detail what kind of ordeals she had to face in the old country; the first flashback scene shows Nawal's husband being gunned down by her brothers as part of an honour killing, and her troubles only get worse from there. This arguably proves to be the more obviously interesting storyline as it involves Nawal enduring hardship after hardship such as giving up her newborn child, bearing witness to acts of religiously motivated genocide, and so forth. The scenes are frequently painful to watch even when Villeneuve opts to use discretion and cuts away from more heinous acts such as rape or child-murder. The present-day storyline doesn't involve anything nearly as graphic, though scenes where Jeanne hears first-hand accounts of what happened to Nawal can frequently prove to be as emotionally lacerating as any straightforward depiction of shocking material. That's definitely effective enough to carry the film as it heads towards its conclusion - however, the build-up is handled so well that when it finally piles on reveal after reveal, it's easy to think of them less as shocks than as thuds because there is no way that the reveals could measure up to the established atmosphere (even if they do make sense within the narrative).

Outside of the story's debatable tightness and varying levels of discretion, Incendies proves a technically decent film that can wring some uncomfortable levels of tension out of some unlikely scenarios. Villeneuve's eye for strong cinematography is evident here even without a distinctive veteran like Roger Deakins behind the camera, plus the ways in which he stages external action are still full of considerable suspense (such as one scene where a group of young boys try to make their way down a bombed-out street while avoiding sniper fire). I definitely respect the ambitious nature of the storytelling, though it is undercut by the fact that it isn't concluded all that well. It's weird when you watch a film and understand that its conclusion is quite simply the most logical and understandable progression from the rest of the narrative yet still can't help but feel a little underwhelmed. Otherwise, it's a solid film with generally good performers who can sell individual moments well and accentuate the script's strengths. I wouldn't automatically think of this as my favourite Villeneuve film, but it does come awfully close as it showcases the horrors of war (both secular and religious) and the effect it can take on untold generations in all sorts of unsettling manners.

3.5

[Iroquois]

I am genuinely surprised as to how much +rep the A Few Good Men review has gotten.

[TheUsualSuspect]

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE REP!!!"

[JayDee]

I find it impossible to try and keep up with this thread! :D Anyway I love Invasion of the Body Snatchers, that's a real favourite of mine. I think Kaufman does a fantastic job of creating this creepy, tense atmosphere. I love some of the weird, unsettling touches he includes such as Robert Duvall's priest or background images like someone running for their life or glaring at our protagonists through a glass door.

I also really enjoyed Cube though I've only seen that once and fancy giving it a rewatch sometime

[Derek Vinyard]

I disagree with the rating you give for Primal Fear but I do like your review because I do think you're one of the best reviewer here ;)

[Iroquois]

#671 - Batman Begins
Christopher Nolan, 2005

http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/video/stills/batman2-large.jpg

After his wealthy parents are murdered by a mugger, a young man join a clan on ninjas and decides to use the skills he learns to become a masked vigilante.

Batman Begins kind of gets lost in the shuffle when it comes to discussing Christopher Nolan's trilogy of films dedicated to bringing the caped crusader to life. It does take up the burden of setting up an all-new origin story for the world's greatest detective, which becomes especially notable given how the previous set of films only alluded to his origins through brief flashbacks rather than dedicate an entire film to them. The series arguably needed a proper reboot after the campy shambles of Joel Schumacher's Batman and Robin derailed the cinematic side of the franchise, and in the hands of the capable director who was then best known for delivering clever thrillers like Memento and Insomnia it stood to reason that this film might just work despite being an origin story. It does so by building an interesting story out of Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) being met by an enigmatic gentleman (Liam Neeson) while serving time in a Bhutanese prison. Neeson then recruits Bruce into joining a secret clan of ninjas dedicated to dispensing justice, training him to do everything from close-quarters combat to controlling fear and making it a weapon to be used against one's enemies. When the clan's draconian brand of justice proves to be too severe for Bruce's liking, he bails on his newfound comrades and returns home to Gotham City. Once there, he teams up with trusty manservant Alfred (Michael Caine) and proceeds to invent Batman, the secret identity under which he plans to bring true justice to Gotham.

Though the origin-story angle is ultimately what keeps it from being a classic film in its own right, Batman Begins still handles a lot of other stuff right. Stacking the cast with good actors regardless of the part's size seems to be a quality that Nolan has developed, and it is especially pronounced here. Bale proves adept at playing both Bruce Wayne and Batman, though I do wonder if he's just recycling his work as American Psycho's Patrick Bateman in scenes where he plays the former (and as for the latter's incredibly hoarse attempts to disguise his voice...enough said). Neeson's rough yet soothing type of charisma guarantees him an X-factor that makes him a pleasure to watch even in the most dire films; this pleasure definitely extends to virtually every line of dialogue he spits out in this film. Old-school veterans like Caine and Morgan Freeman serve well as Bruce's trusted offsiders, especially when they work as articulate foils who challenge their youthful superior in a number of ways. The same goes for Gary Oldman as he makes the most of a restrained heroic role to make up for all the hammy villains he played during the '90s. Cillian Murphy also proves to be quite the saving grace as the handsome yet deranged villain of the piece whose silky yet sinister delivery does give way to manic overacting from time to time but never without reason. In this company, it's very easy to see Katie Holmes as a weak link in the chain, though she holds her own well enough as the idealistic attorney whose own attitude towards Batman is complicated by her desire for justice that doesn't resort to vigilantism.

The action on display is admittedly the weakest of any of Nolan's three Batman films. His attempts to capture hand-to-hand fighting definitely seem more than a little flat when the camera spins around the fighters and cuts a lot, effectively obscuring any actual skill on the participants' parts. Everything else seems to go just fine, whether it's anything involving the Batmobile or any sort of chases. Even the choppy scene of a series of crooks being picked off one by one is handled well. I also like some of the more interesting angles such as Murphy's usage of a highly powerful hallucinogen to scare people into insanity, which gives way to some impressive-looking effects (especially when one sees Batman through the eyes of an infected person). Though I was watching the villains' main plan unfold with more than a little incredulity, I can't really deny that it was shot through with care as it blended practical effects with CGI landscapes in a way that worked. I still take issue with how it gets a little bogged down in developing the story in a way that makes me forget that it is the shortest of the three Batman films, but it provides enough subtext to its tale of a city in economic despair and the many unfortunate consequences of such a situation. Though I'm going to be boring and still give the edge to The Dark Knight, I still think Batman Begins is arguably the second-best film in Nolan's trilogy. Despite clearly being set up as a building block towards a bigger and better sequel, it still holds its own well enough in a way that other origin-story superhero movies could definitely stand to replicate.

3

[Iroquois]

#672 - The Dark Knight
Christopher Nolan, 2008

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/rifftrax/images/6/6a/Dark_knight19.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140628025840

A masked vigilante must face off against not only a variety of criminal organisations but also an anarchic madman.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/446126-the-dark-knight.html).

(Additional notes: wow, that review really is something. Anyway, I don't think quite as highly of it as I used to and I honestly get a little bored from time to time during various scenes designed to develop the plot. However, the various action sequences and actors like Ledger and Caine are definitely enough to make up for it. Most of that review is still pretty applicable. That being said, the typically Hans Zimmer music actually annoys me - apart from the drones of dread that play from time to time, those are still good.)

3.5

[Iroquois]

#673 - The Dark Knight Rises
Christopher Nolan, 2012

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/07/20/arts/20dark/20dark-articleLarge-v2.jpg

Eight years after giving up his double-life as a masked vigilante, a reclusive billionaire is forced back into action when an army of dangerous fanatics threatens to destroy his hometown.

I've noted before how difficult it is to deliver the final part of an intended trilogy and The Dark Knight Rises really isn't any different in that regard. Granted, it does have to do something very difficult in that it must follow up the extremely popular and acclaimed The Dark Knight, which became the stuff of legend for a wide number of reasons. The most unfortunate of these reasons being the untimely passing of Heath Ledger, which does admittedly put a bit too much of a damper on the proceedings here that the film must work around. Credit must go to the makers for soldiering on and having the trilogy come full-circle by re-introducing the shadowy cult of extreme justice that Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) had fought against in Batman Begins. Though Ledger's creepily maniacal Joker was always going to be a tough act to follow, they certainly seem to have given it a serious shot by introducing a masked mercenary named Bane (Tom Hardy), who is introduced as part of an elaborate plane-jacking that seems explicitly designed to rival the astounding opening heist from The Dark Knight. Despite the lapses in logic involved (how do you try to fake a plane crash that involves blowing the wings off the plane?), it definitely stands out as the best scene in the whole film - unfortunately, this causes problems when the rest of the film fails to measure up to the standard set by this sequence.

Having it so that Bruce has gone into hiding following the events of The Dark Knight Rises is hardly the worst start, but it never seriously pays off. The introduction of Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) is a good one that plays into the plot reasonably well as her street-smart cat-burglar proves quite the foil to Bruce's damaged sense of idealism. However, it's cancelled out by the presence of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Officer Blake, who is also relevant to the plot but what personality he receives outside of that just feels awkwardly inserted and occasionally redundant (such as the inclusion of an orphanage in Blake's back-story, even if it is intended to draw parallels between Bruce and Blake). Gordon-Levitt is a capable actor but his character isn't interesting enough on his own and can't even make the most of being a foil to either Bruce or Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman). While I can understand Nolan wanting to reuse several of the actors who made the ensemble acting of Inception a key strength of that film, even Marion Cotillard feels quite wasted in her role as an elegant philanthropist with a mysterious past. Recurring characters such as Gordon, Alfred (Michael Caine) and Lucius (Morgan Freeman) still get to play their usual roles. Caine in particular once again shoulders a lot of narrative weight here despite his screen-time being extremely limited, but his tearful confrontation with a recalcitrant Bruce is another one of the few highlights that this film features.

Making the final installment in the trilogy the most out-and-out epic is an admirable pursuit, but upping the scale is no longer enough. Repeated viewings do expose an awful lot of holes in this film, with the most obvious instance being Batman's sudden ability to use knockout darts that would certainly have proved very useful in many other instances (and it's pretty noticeable how, in a film that runs for nearly three hours, there isn't a scene dedicated to explaining away this egregious instance of narrative convenience). The film hits a lot of the action beats established in previous Nolan films to various effects, though the escalation that was promised in the second film isn't quite delivered despite Gotham City being terrorised like never before. It seems like Nolan has finally managed to provide some decent hand-to-hand fighting as Batman faces off against Bane, though the introduction of yet another Bat-vehicle for him to use to either pursue wrongdoers or evade the law (as embodied by Matthew Modine as the smarmy Javert-like police chief who wants to catch Batman at all costs) doesn't yield results that are entertaining so much as merely appreciable on a purely technical level. Even then, the considerable length of the film paces things too far apart for anything to truly take hold even with its admittedly impressive behind-the-scenes work.

The Dark Knight Rises still has enough quality to it so as to prevent it from being a truly awful movie, but it's still an extremely difficult film to genuinely like. There are definitely elements that I can appreciate about it, whether it's the memorable villain or the attention provided to making the action set-pieces look as slickly proficient as possible. Unfortunately, what does make The Dark Knight Rises fall apart for me is the extremely loose ways in which it tries to justify various scenes that constantly break my suspension of disbelief, to say nothing of the varying levels of interpersonal drama that range from conflict between an embittered man and his surrogate father or the somewhat convoluted love triangle that develops at one point (because introducing a love triangle worked so well in Spider-Man 3). Say what you will about Batman and Robin, at least it wrung an engaging sub-plot out of Alfred potentially dying from a supposedly incurable illness; the relationship between Bruce and Alfred is a potent one and it's disappointing how this film doesn't quite provide the best conclusion to the connection built between Bale and Caine's versions of the characters. While it is arguably the best existing example of a superhero-based "threequel", it still doesn't manage to escape the same expectations that sunk previous threequels. To this end, it must rely on the solid technical capabilities of its crew and the talent of its performers to carry what is ultimately a very underwhelming and overly contrived script. As such, it's not so much a bad film so much as a disappointing one, and it is here that the Dark Knight does not so much rise as fall.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

While I agree with the placing of each film, I would still rate each one higher.

[Tugg]

1. The Dark Knight rating_5
I consider it a classic.
2. The Dark Knight Rises rating_3
It had some political themes. I didn't find hero/ villain lines to be so clearly cut. My favorites were Bane, imprisoned Bruce (and the theme of the prison) and Miranda at the end.
3. Batman Begins rating_3
Fear theme was the best in it. The effect of what you do to who you are is also worthy of consideration. For me it was least memorable movie of the trilogy, though.

[Iroquois]

I would still rate each one higher.

Who wouldn't?

[Iroquois]

#674 - Return to the 36th Chamber
Lau Kar-leung, 1980

http://www.martialartsactionmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Gordon-Liu-is-put-to-work.jpg

When a group of ruthless Manchurians interfere with the operating of a Chinese dyeing mill, a small-time conman is brought in to ameliorate the situation in one way or another.

The 36th Chamber of Shaolin is probably one of my favourite martial-arts films thanks to the lavish production values provided by the Shaw Brothers studios and the physically talented performers that take centre-stage in the tale of Gordon Liu's young Chinese student who opts to fight back against the province's Manchurian overlords by mastering kung-fu at the local Shaolin temple. Two sequels were made to the film - this film and Disciples of the 36th Chamber, the latter of which I already reviewed. I was ultimately unimpressed with Disciples of the 36th Chamber because it decided to play the original film's training-centric narrative for disappointingly broad comedy using an extremely foolish lead who had to be bailed out of trouble by Liu's strict Shaolin monk; even the action-packed finale did little to redeem the film as a whole. As a result, I was hoping that the original film's other sequel would at least prove to be a bit more palatable thanks to the fact that Liu apparently played the actual lead in this one. Unfortunately, it seems that The 36th Chamber of Shaolin really wasn't intended to yield sequels as Return to the 36th Chamber proves underwhelming despite my relatively heightened expectations.

The main problem comes from the fact that Gordon Liu does not play student-turned-warrior-monk San Te, who he played in The 36th Chamber of Shaolin and Disciples of the 36th Chamber. Instead, he plays a lowly con artist named Chu, who is willing to impersonate Shaolin master San Te if it gets him some money. This impresses some naive Chinese dye-mill workers who want to use him in order to fool some vindictive Manchurians who have taken over their workplace. Of course, this causes no end of trouble as Chu is ultimately made to serve the temple, who understandably treat him as a nuisance. This leads to Liu having to go through another extended training montage that attempts to milk some comedy out of his irresponsible novice being made to endure some punishing training (most memorably involving his being made to wash up at a well without using a bucket). While The 36th Chamber of Shaolin was able to make its hero undergoing various trials fairly compelling due to their inventive nature and serious approach to the material, here the attempt to make Liu's character into a foolish Jackie Chan type fails pretty miserably and makes the bulk of the film a bit of a chore to watch. Having it so that there is an experienced Shaolin monk named San Te in the film (even though he is being played by a different actor) only serves to make things a bit more illogical and confusing. At first I thought that Liu was originally going to be revealed to be San Te disguising himself as a beggar but the truth is actually more disappointing for a variety of reasons.

As poor as Return to the 36th Chamber is, it isn't totally terrible as it not only has the eye-catching Shaw Brothers aesthetic going on but also manages to provide an appropriately exciting climax during its final fifteen minutes. Unfortunately, to get there you do have to sit through a rather dry eighty minutes where the bare-bones plot rehashes that of the original film in a way that initially seems confusing and feels longer despite being shorter. The decision to add a comical bent to the proceedings fails because Liu is much better at being serious than clowning around like Jackie Chan or Sammo Hung. I guess I should be grateful that the humour isn't quite as exaggerated as that of Disciples of the 36th Chamber, which was definitely undone as a result of that decision. The innovation that made the original film's training sequences so memorable is absent here, neutering this film's main draw considerably. Your appreciation of this film may depend on how much you like old-school martial-arts films, but outside of its ending there's very little to make Return to the 36th Chamber stand out on its own terms.

2

[honeykid]

Who wouldn't?

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sjrschool.com%2Fresources%2Fanswer-boy-color.gif&f=1

[Iroquois]

#675 - Dead Man
Jim Jarmusch, 1995

https://twscritic.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dead-man-1995.png

After a timid accountant is mortally wounded during a shoot-out, he meets a Native American who intends to take him on a spiritual journey.

The main reason why the Western has proved such an easy genre to deconstruct over the past few decades is because the triumphant mythology surrounding brave pioneers and righteous lawmen didn't exactly reflect the harsher realities of life on the lawless frontier. Though old-school classics may have hinted at the darker side of the Wild West, they were still effectively constricted by an underlying dedication to championing the legendary side of things. John Ford's The Searchers is a prime example in how it tried to show how John Wayne's seemingly noble quest to rescue his niece from the Native Americans that murdered his other relatives was fraught with moral ambiguity and racist cruelty (to say nothing of the off-screen implications of rape and murder), yet it still couldn't help but play into the inherently exciting prospect of seeing cowboy icon Wayne swagger his way across the screen and conquer any threat with ease. Still, that was one of many films that ended up being steps towards more nuanced cinematic portrayals of the Wild West over the following decades. This brings us to Dead Man, a film by the notoriously idiosyncratic Jim Jarmusch. Jarmusch has worked in a variety of genres over the years as he's made movies about vampires, assassins, prisoners, and spies, yet his unique cinematic sensibilities can be felt across every single film he's ever made. Dead Man sees him take on the Western, and in doing so he makes what might just be his masterpiece.

An interminable prologue that takes place aboard an infernal-looking train introduces us to Bill Blake (Johnny Depp), a meek young man who is moving from Cleveland to the ominously named town of Machine in order to start a new job working as an accountant in a steel factory. Once he arrives in the filthy and miserable Machine, he soon discovers that the job that he was promised has been given to someone else instead. After being run out of the factory by its shotgun-wielding boss (Robert Mitchum), he hooks up with a flower girl (Mili Avital). However, her ex (Gabriel Byrne) stumbles in and opens fire on the two of them. Blake manages to kill Byrne, but not before getting a bullet lodged in his chest. After making his escape, he ends up being resuscitated by a Native American named Nobody (Gary Farmer). Nobody becomes convinced that Blake is actually English poet and painter William Blake and works to take him on a spiritual journey so as to return him to the spirit world (which, given the title and the bullet in the chest, doesn't really feel like much of a spoiler). Meanwhile, it is revealed that Mitchum is actually Byrne's father, which prompts him to hire three extremely vicious bounty hunters (Lance Henriksen, Michael Wincott, and Eugene Byrd) to track down Blake and kill him.

While many revisionist Westerns are unflinching in their portrayal of the frontier as an extremely grim and horrible place, few of them actually get under my skin as much as Dead Man does. There's no pastoral charm to the frontier town where the folks are miserable and one of the first things Blake sees upon his arrival is a man forcing a woman to service him at gunpoint. Even his dalliance with the kindhearted Avitil is short-lived thanks to the arrival of Byrne, and even then he's not so much a moustache-twirling villain as an incredibly depressed and lonely (but still homicidal) person who seems to welcome the incompetent Blake taking several shots to actually hit him. Even Blake's trip into the wild with Nobody, who is more or less the only friend he's got despite their initial friction, is tempered with unease as he soon realises that there's a price on his head. He may not personally be aware of the bounty hunters hired to kill him, but the film is definitely sure to check in on their activities from time to time anyway. In doing so, it reveals that, while the loquacious Wincott and the stubborn Byrd are reasonably sane as far as hired killers go, Henriksen in particular is practically the incarnation of pure evil and stands out as the greatest monster in a film packed with horrible people. Even leaving aside the men tracking him, Blake also has to contend with the possibility that every single person he runs into during his trip through the wild is potentially dangerous regardless of whether or not they know about the bounty. Also, the violence tends to be ugly and senseless in a way that defies simple glorification (though it does make something of an exception for Blake and Nobody since they are the closest this film gets to having heroic characters).

Considering Jarmusch's tendency to depend on characterisation in lieu of plot, it's a good thing that he's stacked the cast with some great actors. Depp gives one of his best performances here, selling Blake's progression from hapless city-slicker to confident outlaw extremely well through soft vocals and polite desperation. Farmer carries the film well as he plays a character who admittedly doesn't have much of an arc outside of his quest to help Blake reach the spirit world, but he proves such a charismatic foil to the uncharacteristically understated Depp. Nobody gets more backstory than Blake himself as he describes things such as his traumatic upbringing that involves being shunned by his people and paraded around as a noble savage by the white man. Their odd-couple chemistry is magnificent even though the bulk of the dialogue comes from the extremely talkative Nobody. While most of the film concerns their travails alone, the rest of the cast is still pretty solid even though several actors only get a scene or two. In his final acting role, Western veteran Mitchum is still capable of channeling considerable menace as a ruthless industrialist who will aim a shotgun at anyone who dares to challenge his authority and who is so thoroughly business-minded that his contract on Blake even prioritises the recovery of the horse that Blake stole. Weather-beaten character actor Henriksen proves a chilling presence as the extremely determined and sadistic bounty hunter, while the gravel-voiced Wincott proves a darkly amusing foil as he also seems incapable of shutting up (which I suppose makes them very evil counterparts to Blake and Nobody). Recognisable actors will show up in the smallest of roles - John Hurt plays Mitchum's sycophantic subordinate, Crispin Glover plays a prophetic train engineer, and Alfred Molina plays a gleefully racist missionary. There's even an trio of deranged fur trappers played by Billy Bob Thornton, Jared Harris, and Iggy Pop, whose one scene together aptly demonstrates the film's very off-kilter sense of humour.

As far as technique goes, Dead Man is still a sublime piece of work. Jarmusch once again teams with Robby Müller (who is responsible for shooting quite a few of my favourite films) to create a deliberately monochromatic portrait of the West that makes excellent use of stark balance, whether it's showing the chugging of a steam engine or the stillness of pale forests and gloomy skies. Even the film's approach to violence is depicted in a variety of styles that range from the darkly comical (such as the scene with the fur trappers) to the surprisingly righteous (any time Blake shoots somebody) to the genuinely disturbing (the infamous "religious icon" scene, which still makes me cringe a little in its brutality). The episodic nature of the film is reflected in the use of scene transitions that involve fading to black, which only adds to the film's dreamlike pace. Of course, I don't think anything defines Dead Man quite as much as the guitar score by legendary musician Neil Young. Though it's arguably not to everyone's tastes, it doesn't really matter. The largely-improvised guitar work shifts between acoustic melancholy and electric noise at the drop of a hat and appropriately accentuates the grim mix of humour and existentialism that makes the film work.

Dead Man does have moments where it threatens to grow a little too slow and maudlin for its own good, but it never stays that way for long as it traces Blake's bizarre odyssey through a Wild West that is very far removed from your average John Wayne film or even your average Clint Eastwood film. It says a lot about Jarmusch's oblique style of both writing and directing that a film as brutal and ponderous as Dead Man can actually be considered one of his more accessible pieces of work. Though it may work to depict the frontier as a living hell in more ways than one, there are still many moments of poignancy scattered throughout. The film is buoyed by a stellar cast, with Depp and Farmer proving a great pair of leads around which a revolving door of impressive performers can orbit. Other great collaborators appear behind the scenes as Müller provides some sublime cinematography that is capable of capturing desolation and beauty in equal measure, while Young's cacophonous score really does make for one of the greatest soundtracks I've ever heard. I definitely consider it one of my favourite Westerns and with good reason - it not only offers something different, but it offers it with brilliance.

4.5

[nebbit]

I https://smileyshack.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/sbowing_100-106.gif down to you Iro this thread is amazing :yup:

[Iroquois]

#676 - El Topo
Alejandro Jodorowsky, 1970

http://www.midnightonly.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/el-topo-2.jpg

A gunslinger travels through the desert and encounters a variety of bizarre individuals on his journey.

When I first started getting into film as a serious hobby, I heard about a great number of films that were intriguing not just because of their apparent quality but also because of their sheer rareness. This much is definitely true of the films of Alejandro Jodorowsky, who I first heard about after reading about his sophomore feature El Topo. The film, a surreal Western about the eponymous gunslinger and the many strange experiences that he has in his quest to become the greatest gunman in the world, had built a cult reputation as one of the original "midnight movies" yet it was still something of a rarity when I first heard about it. Eventually, it got released on local DVD in either 2007 or 2008 and I naturally jumped at the chance to see this legendarily weird film. Naturally, I really liked it and went on to watch a few more Jodorowsky films. However, I never really got around to re-watching it until recently, when I found out that there'd be a proper theatrical screening of it recently I found the prospect very interesting and naturally settled down to revisit El Topo.

Unfortunately, if there's a problem that seems to unite every Jodorowsky film (or at least those I've seen more than once), it's that the extreme emphasis on surrealist spectacle above all else does mean that the film is bound to lose a lot of its power on repeat viewings. El Topo doesn't exactly have the most complex of plots as it pinballs from vignette to vignette in very much the same way that El Topo himself goes in search of a purpose. As such, the film is arguably broken into three relatively identifiable parts. The first sees El Topo and his son follow a trail of human wreckage caused by a corrupt military official and his degenerate subordinates. The second sees El Topo traveling with a woman who encourages him to fight against the four greatest gunfighters in the land so that he can be the very best. The third sees El Topo working to free a community of deformed cave-dwellers from their subterranean home by earning the charity of the local townsfolk and building a tunnel with the proceeds. To be fair, there is a clear progression as El Topo starts off being nigh-indistinguishable from the stereotypical Western anti-hero who will fight against the unambiguously evil on behalf of the innocents that they terrorise (even if he does so in some incredibly vicious ways). Things get murkier as his quest to become the best gunslinger alive subverts the expected narrative as El Topo realises that he is severely outclassed by his opponents not just in terms of fighting abilities but also in terms of their personal philosophies, which do recall states of enlightenment instead of his misguided quest for glory. Finally, there is his attempt to redeem himself by being reborn as a monk-like figure and intending to save the less fortunate, which starts off promisingly but soon falls apart for a multitude of reasons. Underneath the film's bizarre imagery, there's a recognisable structure.

Despite Jodorowsky's attempt to supplant a recognisable Western storyline with a cavalcade of images designed to evoke everything from slapstick humour to spiritual contemplation, the second time around it's just boring. Sure, this time around I can concentrate on what the movie is trying to say underneath its superficial weirdness, but it's not really saying too much of note. There's a fairly flat juxtaposition of religious subjects, with El Topo's journey being framed as one towards Zen enlightenment in a way that feeds into the film's vicious satire of Christianity (which is best exemplified by what is quite possibly the most messed-up game of Russian roulette in cinema history), to say nothing of the perverted ways in which bandits are seen mistreating a group of monks early on in the film. The prospect of El Topo dueling the greatest gunfighters fills the second act reasonably well, though it's still given over to dwelling on his relationship with the woman he rescues (which does take some unfortunate turns, such as when he grants her his Moses-like powers to find food and water in the desert by raping her). Even the very unorthodox duels that take place only go so far as they are not given over to tension so much as quasi-philosophical mumblings that define the four masters and explain just why they are fundamentally better at everything than El Topo.

While I doubt that Jodorowsky packs out his films with confrontational imagery for the sake of mere counter-cultural shock value, it's not like the meanings behind them come across as any more profound when the shock value has worn off. As a result, El Topo does seem awfully compromised on a second viewing. It's technically decent in terms of cinematography and production design, adding in some interesting touches such as El Topo's leather ensemble or the omnipresent iconography of the Eye of Providence scattered around the town. Even though I haven't seen it in what must be several years now, this time around I found it a serious slog (which seemed especially pronounced given the theatrical setting - surely one of the original midnight movies would have proved even better with an appreciative audience, but sadly this was not the case here). I suppose that El Topo has enough in the way of compelling visuals to make it worth watching at least once, but a second viewing really does not yield much more except a clarification of not only a lack of depth but also some more problematic aspects in regards to subjects like women, homosexuality, and animal cruelty.

2

[Iroquois]

#677 - Child's Play
Tom Holland, 1988

http://cinemassacre.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/childsplay.jpg

A single mother buys her son a talking doll for his birthday, which just so happens to have been possessed by the soul of a dead serial killer.

I guess this review is coming from a difficult place considering how I watched the back half of Child's Play on television at some point in the past year, which would undoubtedly suck a fair bit of tension out of even the best horror movies. Child's Play is definitely not one of the best horror movies, though it's not for a lack of trying. I had liked Holland's attempt to update the classic vampire movie for the 1980s with Fright Night, so I figured that he might be able to wrangle something worthwhile out of the "killer doll" sub-genre. Killer dolls seem to occupy a bit of a no-man's-land when it comes to being horrifying because it is superficially silly compared to other sub-genres yet it still plays on enough genuinely unsettling fears that it's managed to have staying power over the course of decades. Child's Play is pretty straightforward in that regard by having a mortally wounded serial killer (Brad Dourif) uses his knowledge of voodoo in order to channel his soul into the nearest available vessel, which just so happens to be a talking doll. Though the doll is torn out of its box and covered in human blood, it still ends up in the hands of a back-alley peddler who sells it to a single mother (Catherine Hicks) who's desperate to give her young son the right birthday present.

The premise is ridiculous enough that the sequels understandably aimed to play up the inherently comical nature of a foul-mouthed kids' toy with homicidal tendencies. Even now, much of the appeal of the original Child's Play comes from the silliness more so than any actual terror. Of course, this film also falls prey to the same (arguably necessary) flaw as Fright Night in that it spends a lot of time on various people refusing to believe the truth about the supernatural threat until it's too late. Half the film becomes quite the chore as a result, picking up only as Chucky becomes much more open about his violent scheming. The film at least tries to pull a Jaws and capture Chucky's initial antics through first-person shots and brief glimpses, but that does very little compared to scenes where he's seen in full complete with uncanny animatronics and Dourif's snarling voice. There's more fun to be had at seeing Chucky take all sorts of violence on his own more so than inflict it in others, with the effects work at once being decent and also amusing. Unfortunately, that's not enough to really redeem Child's Play as a solid film in its own right.

2

[Daniel M]

Fantastic review of Dead Man there, it makes me want to watch the film again, one of my favourites.

[Camo]

Bride of Chucky was my favourite as a kid but i loved the first three too, it is one of those series' i refuse to revisit because after seeing an excellent teaser for it Seed of Chucky turned out horrible. I imagine the first four would feel the exact same and i would rather preserve the mememory. Saying that i've always been baffled at the idea of them scaring anyone, even the more serious first two (from what i can remember) i found funny at an early age. Also you are spot on with the "no one believes them" part of some Horror movies.

Great write up as usual :up:

[TheUsualSuspect]

I think I've only seen Bride and Seed of Chucky from start to finish. The other films sort of bleed together in a blur of some scenes here and some scenes there.

[Iroquois]

#678 - Unforgiven
Clint Eastwood, 1992

http://i0.wp.com/www.theasc.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/5-Unforgiven.jpg

A young gunslinger seeks out a retired outlaw to help him claim a bounty on a pair of cowboys who have disfigured a woman.

"Straightforward" is the ideal word to characterise Clint Eastwood's work as an actor and as a director, and Unforgiven is arguably the prime example of how well he works in both those regards. The Westerns he's directed have naturally tended to be revisionist ones, whether it's the twisted morality tale of High Plains Drifter or the deconstructive ensemble drama of The Outlaw Josey Wales. As of writing, Unforgiven is the last Western he's both acted in and directed and it definitely serves as quite the concluding statement to the man's work in the genre. As far as its deconstructive angle goes, it's pretty simple. The main story begins in the small town of Big Whiskey, where a cowboy has cut up the face of one of the prostitutes (Anna Levine) that works at the local saloon. Her colleagues want the law to come down hard on both the perpetrator and his friend, but the town sheriff (Gene Hackman) decides to fine the two men rather than resort to corporal punishment. Unhappy with the perceived miscarriage of justice, the prostitutes pool their resources to put up a bounty on both men, which starts to draw all sorts of attention. Eastwood himself plays a former outlaw who has given up his notoriously violent ways for the love of a good woman, settling down on a farm and raising two kids. The story begins a few years after his wife's passing, showing Eastwood trying to keep the farm afloat even as his pigs are becoming diseased. It is at this point where a fresh-faced young man (Jaimz Woolvert) arrives on his property with a proposition: team up with him in order to claim the aforementioned reward.

While the most obvious subversion of the Western genre would definitely be scenes featuring an iconic Western actor like Eastwood failing at even the most basic cowboy tasks such as firing a gun or mounting a horse, the deconstruction naturally runs a little deeper than that. There is definitely something disagreeable about the idea that the punishment for a woman being permanently disfigured amounts to a handful of horses being paid to the saloon owner who employs her, yet that doesn't quite seem to excuse the other women's decision to hire gunmen to straight-up murder both men (especially when the decision to post a bounty is made mainly by Frances Fisher as the headstrong and temperamental group leader, whose colleagues just go along with the plan). To this end, Hackman is set up to be a major antagonist with his extremely imbalanced dispensation of justice, especially when his lax punishment of the face-cutting cowboy is contrasted against his uncompromising beat-down and humiliation of a pompous English gunslinger (Richard Harris) who does nothing more than choose to disregard the town's strict no-guns-allowed policy. His life outside the job, where he is seen trying to fulfill a very American goal of building a house with his own two hands, indicates that he's much more complex than your typical corrupt sheriff; one can definitely find themselves questioning whether or not his hard-line tactics (as masked by his outwardly friendly demeanour) are actually effective or not, even though there's definitely something fundamentally tyrannical about the way he runs the town.

Western mythology and its creation is definitely a major theme that runs through Unforgiven, especially when it's understood within the universe of the film. The main reason that Woolvert seeks out Eastwood is due to the many stories he's heard about Eastwood's dark and troubled past, constantly expressing disbelief at the fact that the seemingly incompetent old man is the same one he's heard so much about. Meanwhile Eastwood only ever seems to reflect on his past deeds with both regret and confusion, only ever opening up about the truth to his long-time riding partner (Morgan Freeman). The word of mouth that exaggerates various tales (such as Levine's disfigurement being described as even more vicious than it actually is) is embodied in the form of a writer (Saul Rubinek) who follows Harris around and documents his exploits, embellishing them as necessary to make for best-selling tales of adventure and excitement. When Hackman is ready to set the record straight not just about Harris's experiences but also provides an engaging insight into the real psychology of the Wild West, he proves a more fascinating subject for Rubinek's work than Harris. It's an easy enough metaphor for how the easy thrills of older and morally unambiguous Western fiction can easily be superseded by the less overtly exciting but fundamentally more interesting tales that are rooted in realism, though Rubinek's fascination with capturing the truth of the matter is still ultimately seen as a nuisance.

As rich in thematic content as it may be, Unforgiven is still an extremely solid film in just about every regard. On the acting front, things are solid, especially in the case of the four old professionals that headline the film. Eastwood gets to take his usual squinting badass persona and feed it some much-needed vulnerability that really adds depth to later events. He gets in some appropriately sardonic camaraderie with Freeman, who provides something of an intermediary between the embittered Eastwood and the petulant Woolvert. Hackman understandably won an Oscar for his work as the sheriff whose avuncular attitude and dedication to maintaining law and order by any means necessary ultimately make him into a greater villain than any face-cutting ne'er-do-well; he carrying scenes well whether through humourous interplay with others, letting his inner menace shine through, or a combination of both those factors. Harris plays a smaller role than expected, though his debonair British charm and the subsequent derailment thereof make for entertaining scenes. Fisher and Levine exist as more than just plot catalysts, which Woolvert does pretty well playing a character who could have very easily been too annoying but here provides the right air of arrogant bluster and childish insecurity.

The film's visual approach lacks ostentatious style by design, with Eastwood's workmanlike sense of competence proving solid without drawing too much attention to itself. If anything, what really drew my attention this time around was the approach to sound. Though there's a lilting acoustic guitar theme (composed by Eastwood himself) that plays repeatedly throughout the film and also a fair few instances of traditional orchestral score underpinning dramatic moments, these pieces aren't quite as effective as the deployment of background noise. Given how prone the film is to having stormy sequences, it's impressive how much the rumbling thunder is used to emphasise certain beats within scenes without coming across as overdone. In Unforgiven, a well-timed thunderclap does more than any bombastic orchestra could hope to achieve. That is one of many reasons why the film manages to impress time and time again despite seeming to try too hard to do so; it's as effortless a masterpiece as you're likely to find.

4.5

[Iroquois]

#679 - Jacob's Ladder
Adrian Lyne, 1990

https://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Jacobs-Ladder-News.jpg

A Vietnam veteran tries to readjust to civilian life but is constantly experiencing paranoia and hallucinations.

Warning: the following review contains unmarked spoilers for Jacob's Ladder.

Pulling off the type of twist ending that changes how an audience will interpret a story the second time around actually seems to be pretty difficult. One can pick up on all the little details that initially seemed insignificant but now add entire layers of depth to the film; then again, one could easily start seeing gaps in the film's established internal logic that have been overlooked in favour of having a left-field development with which to conclude the story in an impressive manner. Jacob's Ladder somehow manages to be the kind of film where the ending is supposed to change everything, but re-watching the film does not provide a sense of added depth or reductive inconsistency so much as...weightlessness. The film itself still seems like a decent example of a psychological thriller as it follows Jacob (Tim Robbins), a Vietnam veteran who now works in a New York post office. Though he's living a fairly normal life now with his girlfriend and co-worker (Elizabeth Peña), he is still haunted by the thought of his estranged family and his traumatic experiences during the war. That's before he starts seeing more unnerving things take place, such as uncanny figures following him at a distance. As his hallucinations and physical well-being worsen, he starts to realise that there might be a greater conspiracy at work here...

Credit where credit's due, Jacob's Ladder holds up okay thanks mainly to the fairly effective atmosphere it builds up. Robbins makes for an appropriately uncomfortable everyman protagonist who believably communicates the wide variety of emotions one might experience during a paranoid breakdown, while Peña does well as his beleagured girlfriend who tries to be supportive through the strain. Other recognisable character actors lend weight to fairly limited roles, whether it's Danny Aiello as Jacob's philosophical chiropractor or Jason Alexander as a sleazy attorney. While the plot doesn't exactly feel especially interesting in and of itself, it's at least compensated for by some fairly inventive uses of horror-like visuals such as inhuman vibrating heads or that entire hospital scene that takes place late in the film. The more overtly disturbing sights on display are enough to compensate for a somewhat underwhelming plot that is not exactly improved by foreknowledge of the ending and a comprehension of its rather shallow religious subtext.

3

[Iroquois]

#680 - Dredd
Pete Travis, 2012

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/namlrrffedra7xq6nfhc.jpg

In a futuristic dystopia where the law is enforced by elite police officers known as "judges", one such judge and his trainee must fight their way through a skyscraper full of violent criminals.

Given how the last attempt to bring dystopian anti-hero Judge Dredd to the silver screen ended up being the disastrous 1995 Sylvester Stallone vehicle, it's not like there was an especially high bar to clear when it came to delivering a follow-up. Surprisingly enough, 2012's Dredd features a far less convoluted plot than the framed-for-murder plot of the Stallone film, instead settling on a very simple variation on the old Die Hard plot. It begins by establishing the ruined world of the future, which extends to a single grimy and densely-populated mega-city surrounded on all sides by inhospitable post-nuclear wasteland. The crime inside the mega-city is so extreme in terms of frequency and severity that any law is kept by an organisation of enforcers known as "judges", who must make snap-decisions when it comes to dispensing justice - though this can extend to imprisoning people, a lot of the time it simply involves an immediate death sentence. After introducing the eponymous judge (Karl Urban) as he relentlessly pursues a small-time gang of crooks, the plot begins when he is put in charge of carrying out the final assessment of a judge-in-training (Olivia Thirlby) who happens to have psychic powers. They then proceed to investigate a crime scene involving three dead bodies on the ground floor of a gigantic residential skyscraper. When the judges arrest their prime suspect (Wood Harris) and attempt to escort him out of the building, the ruthless crime boss (Lena Headey) who rules over the building decides to lock everything down and trap the judges inside. This is all the plot the film needs as the judges have to not only survive but also bring the villains to justice.

Making a good B-movie is a difficult thing to pull off in this day and age, with many films attempting to couch things in self-awareness as a defence mechanism against a jaded audience (though it's not like reveling in their own silliness is an automatic guarantee of enjoyment either). Dredd strikes the right balance in trying to do right by its cult source material without falling into self-parody or taking itself too seriously. It features a good odd couple by putting together Urban's gruff veteran with Thirlby's wide-eyed rookie, with the former showcasing personality without compromising his hardened exterior while the latter displays vulnerability and qualms about her role without undermining her ability to carry out said role. Headey makes for a great villain that is able to arrange all sorts of clever (or just plain brutal) countermeasures against any enemies she encounters, giving off an intimidating aura that does not leave any doubt as to how she managed to easily take over a skyscraper filled with violent gangs. Harris may spend most of his screen-time as the judges' surly hostage, but his role as a calmly sadistic henchman is played for both discomfort and dark laughs (often in quick succession). There aren't too many other notable presences in the film (save perhaps Domnhall Gleeson as the villains' visibly traumatised tech genius), but this isn't exactly a film that demands great characterisation so much as dependable characterisation, especially when certain twists are added in to keep things interesting.

The plot is straightforward enough so as to not really require too much comment, but it's definitely impressive as to how quickly and efficiently it is told over the course of a lean 90 minutes. There's quite a lot of world-building and plot points to establish, which are both accomplished thanks to an economical use of dialogue and editing that does not sacrifice style or substance through brevity. The same applies to the film's visual aesthetic, which does admittedly rely on both post-apocalyptic monochrome and used-future neon. However, by over-saturating the film with high-contrast colours (as if to make each shot really look like a panel out of a comic book), Dredd more than makes up for any apparent lack of reinvention. It gets turned up to gleefully excessive levels when the film opts to play with the fantastic, whether it's in depicting the effects of Thirlby's psychic powers or showing what it's like to be high on "slo-mo", the aptly-named street drug that plays a major role in the film's conflict. The film doesn't skimp on intensity or action as it shows the various methods and tools that the judges use to fight back against their aggressors; though the confines of the narrative result in this mainly extending to shoot-outs more than anything, it still finds time to throw in a high-speed pursuit and more than a few explosions. The effects work is definitely top-notch considering the relatively small scale of the production.

Though it's easy to fault Dredd for a number of reasons - simple plot, repetitive action, the occasional moment where a B-movie trope is recycled more instead of refined - I still find it a very watchable (and, perhaps more importantly, re-watchable) piece of work. It makes for a great throwback to the cult classics of the '80s that knew how to handle the extraneous parts of action movies like plot and characterisation, creating simple but effective examples of both in the process. Not only that, but it makes use of the technological upgrades afforded by 21st-century film-making to craft some impressive-looking scenes of carnage while also indulging lean but potent character moments and even evoking terrible beauty out of otherwise painful-looking events (case in point - the final "slo-mo" scene). Everything comes together in such a way that even the background score full of chugging electric guitar feels like a natural fit instead of an obnoxious concession to the lowest common denominator. I'd definitely hold this up as one of the best action movies of the 2010s, and though there's no telling what's likely to come along in the next few years, there's no doubt that Dredd will be waiting to take on any comers (hopefully including its own sequel).

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Surprised by your Dredd review. I liked it a lot as well. For a second I thought Iro was becoming the Armond White of Mofos.

[Iroquois]

For a second I thought Iro was becoming the Armond White of Mofos.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Iroquois]

#681 - Freaks
Tod Browning, 1932

http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/freaks-1932.jpg

Follows the lives of the people who work in a traveling circus's freak show as a vain trapeze artist tries to get her hands on a little person's inheritance.

One of the earliest examples of a cult film has to be Tod Browning's Freaks, a tale about the lives of the people who work in a traveling circus. As befitting the title, much of the film's plot has to do with the people who work in the circus's freak show, which includes little people, "pinheads", a bearded lady, conjoined twins...you get the idea. Its prologue showcases an audience recoiling in disgust at an unseen sideshow attraction, at which point a carnival barker launches into telling the story behind said attraction. This segues into life at the circus and all the interpersonal dramas that unfold between the various employees of the company. Though there are a few different plots featured in this film, there's one that takes precedence above all others - that of Hans and Cleopatra. Hans is a little person who has recently received a considerable inheritance. When beautiful trapeze artist Cleopatra learns of this inheritance, she conspires with her strong-man lover Hercules to lure Hans away from fellow little person Frieda, marry him for his money, and murder him.

As far as plots go, that's so simple that it barely fills out an hour-long picture. Fortunately, Freaks at least manages to pad it out reasonably well. Part of the reason that Freaks has held up really well isn't so much out of technical or narrative aptitude so much as the rather impressive humanism displayed in telling the stories of these marginalised folks. An opening disclaimer goes to great length to point out how the people who work in the freak show and anyone like them don't just deserve sympathy (which is vaguely condescending) but respect, and the plot bears that out. The aggressively cruel villains of the piece - gorgeous Cleopatra and musclebound Hercules - are living embodiments of able-bodied ideals, while the freaks themselves may not fit said ideals but are still far more capable of being friendly and likable. Their sense of community (as demonstrated in the infamous "one of us" scene) is palpable and even extends outside their fraternity, as demonstrated by the comical sub-plot where a pair of conjoined twins must deal with the conflicts caused by their different suitors. Even with its attempt to provide a more nuanced portrayal of sideshow freaks, it still can't help but show off some of their talents, with one of the film's most memorable moments being watching the "Human Torso" light a cigarette despite not having any arms or legs. It arguably qualifies as essential viewing, though I wouldn't exactly think of it as a horror film - it's so much more than that.

4

[cricket]

Still loving the reviews, Iro. I agree that Unforgiven is a masterpiece and I'm with you on Freaks too. I didn't care much for Dead Man. I've heard others praise it's cinematography as well, but I thought it looked like it was filmed in my back yard. I plan on giving it another go.

[Iroquois]

Still loving the reviews, Iro. I agree that Unforgiven is a masterpiece and I'm with you on Freaks too. I didn't care much for Dead Man. I've heard others praise it's cinematography as well, but I thought it looked like it was filmed in my back yard. I plan on giving it another go.

You must have one hell of a backyard.

[cricket]

I've got the woods behind me:)

[Iroquois]

#682 - Masked Avengers
Chang Cheh, 1981

https://wuxiacinema.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/masked-avengers-1981-3-chiefs.jpg

A lowly cook becomes embroiled in a conflict between two clans of warriors, one of which is good and one of which is evil.

I guess the Shaw Brothers studio isn't too different from any other studio in that they produce a fair bit of chaff to go along with their extremely classic wheat. At least Masked Avengers benefits from the fact that it utilises the same director and performers that made the great Five Deadly Venoms. Everyone knows great martial artists like Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee, but some credit has to go to the less famous fighters that came out of the same scene like Gordon Liu or Philip Kwok. I mainly know Kwok for playing brutal henchman Mad Dog in John Woo's action masterpiece Hard Boiled, but he is also known for being one of the original Venoms and his wry countenance proves a surprisingly good core to this film and others. Here, he plays a cook who finds himself caught between two warring clans. As befitting the title, there is a clan of mask-wearing villains that indulges various bizarre qualities such as using tridents to fight or drinking human blood. To this end, a more righteous clan takes up the fight against them. Though Kwok wants to stay out of the fight, his unlikely skill at martial arts is noted by heroes and villains alike and soon he must make a choice.

Cheh and co. once again indulge the same overblown theatricality that worked so well in Five Deadly Venoms, though like that film it does get bogged down by making the plot about the mysterious true identities associated with the titular masked men. The same goes for Kwok's character, who is very similar to the one he played in Five Deadly Venoms. The strength of the plot does fluctuate wildly with the identity-based story proving alternately intriguing yet dull. Being a Venoms film, it is naturally about fights with the occasional moment of fantastic acrobatics involving wire-fu and walking on walls. The use of tridents makes for an interesting angle, especially during the finale in the villains' trap-filled lair. The same goes for the twisted nature of the villains as they drink the blood of their innocent hostages, making for a surprisingly bloody film by the Shaw Brothers' standards. Though these aspects do serve to give the film some personality, it's still more or less par for the course as far as these films go. I'm just glad that it's not overly objectionable and doesn't try to force any broad humour into the proceedings. Not a bad watch, but not exactly essential either.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#683 - The Addams Family
Barry Sonnenfeld, 1991

https://newslang89.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/theaddamsfamily1.jpg

An extremely weird and eccentric family is targeted by a con artist who plans to get her hands on their wealth by passing off her son as the family's long-lost uncle.

Until recently, I somehow managed to avoid watching either film based on 1960s sitcom The Addams Family, a collection of bizarre horror-trope individuals whose ostensible weirdness served as a comically subversive counter-point to other sitcom families of the era. As such, it proved relatively easy to update to the early-1990s, especially in the hands of cinematographer-turned-director Barry Sonnenfeld, who was previously best-known for his multiple collaborations with the Coen brothers and has since gone on to direct the Men in Black movies. The plot focuses on the family's suave patriarch Gomez (Raul Julia) as he continues his decades-long search for his long-lost brother, Fester. At the same time, the family's attorney (Dan Hedaya) ends up in trouble with a mother-and-son pair of crooks. When it turns out that the son (Christopher Lloyd) bears an uncanny resemblance to Fester, all three of them hatch a plan to have the son impersonate Fester so as to acquire the Addams family's considerable wealth and assets. To this end, there is just enough plot to justify spending about 90 minutes or so watching this kooky family go about their business.

At this point in time, there's not much that really needs to be said about The Addams Family. The premise may be built on a pretty simple joke - that this family is not only nonchalant about their outwardly nightmarish existence but also fundamentally well-rounded compared to so-called "normal" folks - but it's decent enough to buoy a simple family comedy. The cast assembles a collection of good actors to embody these outlandish actors - Julia appropriately chews all the scenery as the theatrical Gomez and (perhaps more importantly) has good chemistry with Angelica Huston as his vampire-like spouse Morticia. Consummate oddball actor Lloyd makes for an appropriately weird presence as his impostor must try to fit in with the ultimate family of misfits, while Christina Ricci and Jimmy Workman also do well as the family's homicidal children. The over-the-top nature of the film is reflected in the flamboyant score and rapid-fire camerawork that works to capture some fairly solid production design. Though The Addams Family is not without its charm, it does have a bit of trouble being consistently amusing. It gets the odd laugh here and there and the performers do good jobs, but for a film that's supposed to be fairly lightweight (when it's not laying some extremely black yet family-friendly humour, of course) it doesn't quite seem to work on that level.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#684 - Addams Family Values
Barry Sonnenfeld, 1993

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ejU6kk4E-is/UBPqju0scXI/AAAAAAAABEc/xM0v8UTRNeQ/s1600/addams-family-values-stills.jpg

An extremely weird and eccentric family hire a nanny to take care of their children only for the nanny to secretly be a gold-digging serial killer.

I usually maintain that comedy sequels have a hard time matching up to their successful predecessors, but Addams Family Values manages that if only because I didn't think all that highly of the original. It manages to recreate everything that was good about the original without feeling like an empty retread. This can be credited to the fact that it generates a plot that is arguably better than that of the original. With Uncle Fester (Christopher Lloyd) properly reunited with the family, he now wants to find romance. This is around the same time that the family adds a newborn baby and thus creates the need for Gomez (Raul Julia) and Morticia (Angelica Huston) to hire a nanny to watch over the extremely troublesome Wednesday (Christina Ricci) and Pugsley (Jimmy Workman). They do hire a pretty young woman named Debbie (Joan Cusack), who becomes the target of Fester's affections. Though Debbie goes along with Fester's awkward advances, it turns out that she has an ulterior motive; she is actually an extremely dangerous gold-digger who marries wealthy loners and murders them in ways that look like accidents, which of course leads to her targeting Fester. This also extends to her sending Wednesday and Pugsley off to summer camp so as to prevent them from interfering in her plans, which understandably proves to be hell on Earth for the Addams children.

Unusually for a comedy sequel, Addams Family Values is a very slight improvement on the original. It does fall prey to a lot of the same fundamental flaws but it compensates for them in interesting ways. The entire sub-plot involving Wednesday and Pugsley being packed off to summer camp proves a good one as they are made to deal with the extremely peppy staff and campers. There's a solid subtext to the proceedings as these same people are not only white and as conventional-looking as you can get, but they also seek to force the misfit campers (who are also of different races and/or disabled) to participate in an incredibly condescending Thanksgiving play and even punish them by forcing them to watch happy family movies. This side of the film does prove to be more interesting than the whole side with Debbie the killer nanny, whose perseverance in putting up with the family's weirdness and her attempts to murder the smitten Fester yield some okay moments but nothing great. Otherwise, it is pretty much the same as the original, which is hardly the worst thing to be but it does seem to preclude this film from being genuinely great.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#685 - Attack the Block
Joe Cornish, 2011

http://cromeyellow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/attack-the-block-3.jpg

The inhabitants of an inner-city London apartment building must contend with an invasion of savage alien creatures.

All things considered, Attack the Block is a pretty straightforward little B-movie. It takes place on a council estate in South London (colloquially referred to as "the Block") on the night of an alien invasion. The opening sequence sees a gang of juvenile delinquents (led by John Boyega's grim-faced hood) mug a nurse (Jodie Whittaker), only for an alien creature to crash-land nearby. Though the gang tracks it down and kills it, this only marks the beginning of the Block's problems as more and more rain down in the area and soon the furry black creatures with glowing blue teeth are all over the place. This leads to an Assault on Precinct 13 situation where the various human residents of the Block must put aside their differences and fight back against the creatures. That's about all the plot that the film needs as it blends together science-fiction, horror, and even comedy. Combined with the urban British setting, this is a mixture that invites comparisons to the genre parody of Edgar Wright, though Cornish and co. play things a bit straighter. In fairness, there's quite a bit of comedy to be wrought from the various goofy characters that populate the Block (most memorably regular Wright collaborator Nick Frost popping up in a supporting role as an affable drug dealer), especially when they react to the alien invasion in all sorts of incredulous ways. However, some might find the lead gang's inner-city mannerisms and personalities to be abrasive instead of endearing to the point that it may undercut any further attempts to develop and humanise them. Obviously, I didn't have such a problem.

The horror elements are decent enough but one does get the impression that the film isn't too focused on being scary. The creatures do present a formidable threat with their design and deployment having at least some effect when it comes to staging tense sequences (most memorably one scene where the gang attempts to create a smokescreen so as to pass by the creatures undetected). Watching the residents of the Block improvise their own solutions to the alien problem is always good as their weapons range from fireworks to petrol-filled water guns to katanas. There may be the odd plot hole in light of later developments, but it's barely noticeable and doesn't compromise the film as a whole. There's the odd spot of good subtext (such as Boyega remarking on how the creatures' invasion might just be part of a government conspiracy to kill off black youths) and extra threats such as Jumayn Hunter's short-tempered, gun-toting dealer. On a technical level, it relies on steady low-budget professionalism that doesn't draw negative attention. The score is a good one and adds some personality, whether it's Steven Price's fragments of original music or hard-hitting tracks such as KRS One's "Sound Of Da Police". The music that plays during the film's final scene still gives me chills. Attack the Block doesn't exactly reinvent the wheel but it proves an extremely solid B-movie. It may not be all that rewarding on a repeat viewing but I definitely don't feel any serious animosity towards it even when the characters threaten to become too annoying to be worth watching. Still worth a look if you're into genre fare.

3

[nebbit]

#681 - Freaks
Tod Browning, 1932

http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/freaks-1932.jpg

Follows the lives of the people who work in a traveling circus's freak show as a vain trapeze artist tries to get her hands on a little person's inheritance.
It arguably qualifies as essential viewing, though I wouldn't exactly think of it as a horror film - it's so much more than that.

4
I own and love this movie :yup: nice review :yup:

[honeykid]

I agree with you about Attack The Block. It's not anything I particularly want to see again, but I wouldn't be against doing so and, taken for what it is, it does nothing wrong, so fans of B-movie genre pics should enjoy it.

[Iroquois]

#686 - Soldier
Paul W.S. Anderson, 1998

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-33cSy2LSKas/UypJZ91IG_I/AAAAAAAAA98/uWU8iTf5dCo/s1600/se.png

A man who has been bred since birth to be an unthinking super-soldier is incapacitated by a superior model and is subsequently discarded on a planet dedicated to waste disposal.

Before Paul W.S. Anderson got caught up in spawning trashy franchises that would lead to his name being mentioned in the same breath as Uwe Boll or Michael Bay, he actually did seem to have a somewhat promising (if not too ambitious) filmmaking career. His break-out film Mortal Kombat is hardly a masterpiece, but it's actually fairly fun if taken as the lightweight kung-fu fantasy that it's intended to be. Event Horizon is often considered his best film because it does create a solid blend of sci-fi and horror with its vaguely Lovecraftian tale of a haunted spaceship. At the very least, those two films had enough quality between them to make his next film seem promising. The screenplay for Soldier is by David Webb Peoples, whose credits include some of my favourite films such as Blade Runner, Unforgiven, and Twelve Monkeys. That alone proved intriguing, and also I'm pretty sure that Kurt Russell is one of those actors who I'll watch in anything. Nothing that Anderson's done since then seems to seriously interest me, but Soldier looked like it might have had some untapped X-factor beneath its seemingly unimpressive surface.

Soldier takes place several decades in the future (and possibly within the same universe as Blade Runner, if the odd throwaway reference is to be believed) and centres on the idea that the government has bred their own army of super-soldiers. The opening montage follows one of the program's soldiers from infancy through an incredibly grueling period of training where only the strong survive and eventually concludes by revealing the eponymous soldier (Russell) as a battle-hardened veteran. The plot kicks in when a smug colonel (Jason Isaacs) reveals that a new breed of super-soldier has been created that promises to surpass soldiers like Russell in terms of efficiency. When an exercise intended to demonstrate the new soldiers' power goes horribly wrong, Russell is assumed dead and is transported to a planet reserved for waste disposal. After he recovers, he soon comes into contact with a group of dispossessed colonists who have been forced to make new lives for themselves on the planet's garbage-strewn surface without any hope of rescue. Russell, who has known nothing but fighting for his entire life, naturally struggles to fit in with the peaceful community, but that's not the worst of his problems...

I can definitely see why others might be willing to give Soldier the benefit of the doubt. Russell's character seems like a well-developed one as he must come to terms with the fact that he has effectively been rendered obsolete and, once he is kicked out of the only life he's ever known, doesn't know what it means to be a human being. That same questioning of one's nature and what difference it makes is definitely at the heart of the more well-known films that Peoples scripted, and here Russell isn't given over to speaking at length about his inner demons. The conditioning leads to him going without speaking except when it is absolutely necessary, and even then he still acts like he's addressing a superior instead of an equal. It becomes a very physical performance as Russell must subtly express his existential crisis through body language instead of verbal communication, and in that regard his performance definitely works. However, there's not that much more to the film's plot than that and so the whole thing ends up being quite the chore. The first act teases out some promising action scenes but only delivers on a fairly slight fight between Russell and his aggressive opponent (Jason Scott Lee). The second act then starts to drag as he must try to fit in with the peaceful community of colonists, which should be promising but doesn't exactly expand too well on that potential. As a result, things just shuffle along towards the inevitably action-packed third act,which is handled well enough but not well enough to make the film work as a whole.

Soldier seems like a good idea in theory but less so in practice. One could easily lay a lot of the blame on Anderson and his weaknesses as a director, but one could just as easily see the script as an example of diminishing returns on the part of Peoples. Though the cast is stacked with some capable performers including Isaacs, Gary Busey, Connie Nielsen, and Sean Pertwee, they all seem to be rather wasted in a film that provides a weak examination of themes that have arguably been covered better before and since. That also serves to scupper the action side of things a bit as the film reserves the bulk of its action for its third act, so it's extremely uneven as well. It's kind of the same problem that plagued the slightly similar Universal Soldier, which didn't quite seem to be able to deliver either weighty science-fiction or bombastic action thrills. At least the van Damme film was redeemed somewhat by the most recent pair of sequels that actually built on the wasted potential of the original - Soldier, on the other hand, gets no such luck and must live and die as a film that, much like its protagonist, seems to live only for utilitarian acts of violence and little else.

2

[Iroquois]

#687 - Night of the Creeps
Fred Dekker, 1986

http://content8.flixster.com/question/46/45/73/4645738_std.jpg

Decades after an alien experiment crash-lands on Earth and infects a human, a pair of college students end up unleashing the infected human corpse onto their campus.

I had relatively high hopes for Night of the Creeps, another entry into the extremely nebulous '80s horror-comedy canon. After a black-and-white prologue set in the 1950s that combines urban-legend serial killers and alien meteorites, the film shifts to the modern day of 1986. From there, the film proceeds to spend its first act looking indistinguishable from your typical 1980s college comedy as it follows two unpopular geeks (who naturally fit into an awkward/cocky dynamic) as they get into the usual college-kid antics such as trying to join a fraternity or chase after girls. The cocky one (Steve Marshall) plans to set up the awkward one (Jason Lively) to score with the attractive girlfriend (Jill Whitlow), which means that they end up sneaking into a morgue/research facility because the snotty fraternity leader (Allan Kayser) dares them to steal a corpse for a prank. Of course, this leads to them discovering the decades-old corpse that was infected with an alien parasite and so begins the night of the so-called creeps. Things are also complicated by the interference of a grizzled detective (played by cult actor Tom Atkins), who has a deeper connection to the case...

Night of the Creeps certainly has the potential to be an entertaining little B-movie but it doesn't really deliver in that regard. Atkins makes for a decent enough presence as the gruff authority figure with a dark past and a sardonic approach to his job (with both colliding in one of the film's better scenes where he gives a Quint-like monologue about his connection to the creeps), though he does seem to exist mainly to compensate for the generic array of college-comedy stereotypes that pop up throughout the film. Ranging from arrogant blond alpha-males to socially awkward beta-males and the women who are caught between these two types of guy, they don't exactly have a lot in the way of personality in any case. This does make a good chunk of the film a bit hard to like as it seems like a lesser variation on the snobs-against-slobs conflict from Back to School only without any Rodney Dangerfield to lighten things up. At least things do pick up when the alien-infected zombies get loose and the variation involving heads full of infectious parasites is an interesting one. There's not really too much here to seriously distinguish the film for the better, though I will give it some credit for being mildly fun and coming up with some good scenes during its second half, especially when it comes to generating some appropriately gory practical effects (and for having a character dispatch a zombie with a lawnmower before Braindead did).Night of the Creeps is worth a look if you're into cult '80s horror with a darkly comical bent, though it's still a bit dull in parts and only has enough charm to keep it from being genuinely terrible.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#688 - The Blair Witch Project
Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, 1999

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/10/23/1414066383266/Blair-Witch-Project-012.jpg

Three film students head into the woods to film a documentary about an urban legend only to disappear under mysterious circumstances, leading to their footage being found a year later.

I've noted before how there are certain films where actually sitting down and watching them ends up being a formality more than anything else. It is 2015 and I am only now watching The Blair Witch Project for the first time, which means that I'm doing so after its surprisingly profitable tale of shoestring-budget horror managed to popularise an entire brand of "found-footage" horror film for better or worse. I am also approaching it after hearing a sizable amount of detractors decry it because it's apparently not scary, that it just amounts to about eighty minutes of watching three foolish youths get lost in the woods and yell at each other and thus becomes a tedious excuse for a supposedly scary film. While those complaints are fairly valid ones, I was prepared not to let that (or knowledge of the film's ending) put me off actually going through with watching the film. The plot, such as it is, involves three film students teaming up to make a documentary about the "Blair Witch" who supposedly haunts the woods near a small Maryland township. After introducing themselves and filming some interviews with the local townsfolk, the trio proceed to head into the woods for a trip that's only supposed to take a weekend. Of course, things predictably go wrong (between the film's rep and the opening disclaimer, it's pretty obvious that they're not going to succeed at making their film) and soon enough the trio find their seemingly simple journey into the woods complicated not just by their inexperience and interpersonal frictions but also the fact that there might just a Blair Witch after all...

I won't deny that the detractors are actually right about how a good chunk of The Blair Witch Project is dedicating to showcasing these three distinctly opposed personalities clash with one another for reasons that are admittedly ridiculous even when factoring in the fact that they are steadily going insane due to their horrible situation. The prime example would be the whole sub-plot regarding the map and whether or not it's actually worth following. There's also the fact that, with the exception of the odd scene here and there, most of the film seems decidedly unconcerned about any actual supernatural threat from the Blair Witch and instead is more concerned with showing the group losing their minds. However, I don't necessarily see this as a major set-back so much as an understandable choice given the production's limitations. Other horror films have managed to make the strain on the individual players and their increasingly tense interactions with one another as much a part of the dread as the film's actual horrifying threat, and Blair Witch is no different in that regard. The promise of getting lost in the woods is bad enough, but realising that you can't even depend on your companions to keep it together and not screw things up for both you and them for literally no good reason...that's genuinely unnerving. It's potent enough to at least off-set your built-in need to observe these characters and throw your hands up in disbelief at how ridiculous their choices end up being. Being scared of what's happening on-screen is one thing, being skeptical because of it is another thing, but to be both at once...now that is interesting.

Even in a film as brief as The Blair Witch Project, it's still careful to pace out any actual interference by its monster. Even then, any such acts of interference end up being pretty small, with examples including carefully arranged piles of stones or a collection of simple wooden effigies scattered around the woods. If anything, that only makes them creepier, especially when you have no idea what they mean. The instances where the cameras are trained on complete darkness may be a little off-putting for reasons that have nothing to do with horror, but they do sell the amateur nature of things. Even knowing how fake it is does nothing to stop me buying into the distress that the lead trio feel in a way that the various technical shortcomings don't manage to wholly destroy. Switching between the colour video camera and the black-and-white film camera makes for an admittedly interesting cinematic decision that does not feel especially distracting. I also appreciate the fact that the film not only lacks music but also emphasises the sound work as a major part of what makes the Blair Witch scary, with the characters having to listen to all sorts of unsettling noises while inside the relative safety of their tent.

I'm still inclined to think of [REC] as the closest thing I have to a "favourite" found-footage horror film, but it at least has the advantage of featuring a more immediate threat in the form of zombies (and even that wasn't enough to salvage Diary of the Dead). The Blair Witch Project has the added challenge of trying to build up its mysterious monster through off-screen actions such as building stick-figures or making weird noises in the middle of the night, but it does work. Even when the lead trio may stumble a bit in regards to some foolish plot developments (that whole map situation, I mean, damn) and their understandably amateurish acting, they are able to provide decent enough reactions to their genuinely bothersome crisis. Though you can pick apart the foolishness on the part of the main characters, it never quite comes across as enough to bring the film grinding to a halt. It's arguably been surpassed by other films of its ilk and the cracks do show quite easily, but that's not enough to make me dislike it or even think of it as mediocre. Of course, that's also not enough to make me think of it as great either.

3

[Camo]

Great review of Blair Witch, Iro :). I wasn't old enough (i'd have been 5 or 6 at the time) to notice the marketing or reaction to this when it was released, i didn't end up seeing it til years later when i ended up with a DVD of it when i was around 14. All i'll say is that i think it is fine, if i was at the right age and had seen it at the cinema, i think it could have been a favourite Horror.

Poltergeist 2 > Blair Witch though :D

[Iroquois]

#689 - Evil Dead
Fede Alvarez, 2013

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/evil-dead-2013/hero_EB20130403REVIEWS130409993AR.jpg

Five friends head to a cabin in the woods in order to help out one of their number, but things are complicated by the presence of an evil book.

Based off the averages, I'd say that the original Evil Dead trilogy might just be my favourite film series (sorry, Indy). Despite that, I did put off watching the inevitable Evil Dead remake for about two years following its release. While horror remakes are nothing new, it seemed like Evil Dead would be extremely difficult to touch purely because what made it a classic was less about seeing a single murderous villain pick off interchangeable victims so much as seeing iconic protagonist Ashley J. Williams do battle with the forces of evil. Though The Evil Dead was intended to be a fairly straightforward mix of a haunted-house movie and a demonic-possession movie, its two sequels definitely played up the frantic vibe for comedic effect as it saw Ash go through all sorts of slapstick-like torture and eventually get thrown back in time to fight an army of the undead in medieval England. 2013's Evil Dead abandons Ash by necessity (because really, who else could play him but the one and only Bruce Campbell?) and instead decided to work off the bare-bones plot about five youths, a cabin in the woods, and the book of the dead.

Now, I know it's in vogue for horror movies to start off with a prologue that sees a random victim fall prey to the movie's monster of choice, but I'd say that this example feels extremely unnecessary because it really does undercut the later surprise of seeing the Deadites appear (even if the whole sequence is supposed to feed directly into the main plot as the main characters later discover the aftermath). Even knowing how the film's first act takes a while to get to the monsters anyway isn't enough of an excuse for such a lazy prologue that is initially more likely to make me think I've started watching some killer-hillbilly movie instead of an Evil Dead movie. Anyway, the film sets up the familiar premise of five college-aged people all heading to a remote cabin. I do give it credit for coming up with a more interesting reason than their simply going on holiday - they are there to see one of their number (Jane Levy) kick her incredibly self-destructive drug habit by any means necessary. Of course, they not only discover evidence of witchcraft in the basement but they discover an eldritch tome bound in human skin and inked in blood, which of course leads the group's token egghead (Lou Taylor Pucci) to obliviously translate enough of it to let loose a demonic prophecy.

Given how much of The Evil Dead's charm comes from how it played up the more absurd aspects of its supernatural threat without sacrificing its scariness in the process, it's at once understandable and disappointing that Alvarez's remake tries to play things a little straighter. I appreciate that the drug-addiction angle at least provides a good reason why the characters don't turn tail at the first sign of trouble and adds some interesting subtext to the film's external conflict regarding demonic possession. The film does indulge some of its source's less agreeable qualities such as a reiteration on the original's notorious "tree-rape" scene, though this is an example of how playing things straight works just a little better with the scene being unquestionably disturbing instead of having the "is this supposed to be funny" quality of the original version. The foul-mouthed demons that start possessing the various characters one by one are also sure to get into all sorts of disturbing shenanigans, especially when one Deadite gets a little too stabby with a syringe. The tone is solid enough that it more than compensates for when the remake goes a little off the rails and adds its own little tweaks to the plot, which do admittedly remind me of a certain semi-respectable vampire movie from the 1980s. It may not provide as much in the way of frightening jump-scares as its source film did, but there is a certain degree of inventiveness to its gorier aspects that makes the film unsettling enough to get by.

Of course, there are plenty of moments that exist to pay homage to the original trilogy, whether through snippets of dialogue or visual cues. These do come across as sincere instead of patronising more often than not, which is definitely a point in Evil Dead's favour. That sincerity is reflected in the film's reliance on practical effects more so than CGI, which definitely makes things feel appropriately visceral (especially the climax that seems to surpass even Braindead in terms of sheer bloodiness). It was able to keep me in sufficient suspense until the end even as it threatened to drag just a little at points. I can't really fault the people involved for wanting to do something different, especially when there was already next-to-no chance of this film matching up to its source, let alone surpassing it. As such, it proves a surprisingly serviceable example of a modern horror remake that does not feel great but at least does not feel like a puerile affront either. While the changes may alternate between acceptable and inadvisable, there's nothing here that manages to either elevate or undercut the film to a significant degree. Under the circumstances, I would be justified in saying that I hated the film, but in all honesty I really didn't. Obviously, it's not a patch on the original but it's not so much good as good enough. If you do watch this, be sure to stick around after the credits.

3

[Iroquois]

#690 - Death Proof
Quentin Tarantino, 2007

http://www.top10films.co.uk/img/death-proof_image4.jpg

A murderous stuntman who owns a "death-proof" car targets various groups of young women for his own nefarious purposes.

There's an old review on this website where I gave the complete version of Grindhouse five popcorn boxes out of five for being such an enjoyable cinematic experience (and this was after having watched Planet Terror and Death Proof on DVD anyway). As time wore on, I was naturally inclined to agree with the prevailing consensus that, yes, Death Proof was probably Tarantino's all-around weakest film. Me being the magnanimous soul that I am, I opted to re-watch it recently to see if the passage of time had done anything to mellow my feelings about it. Given how Grindhouse was supposed to be a homage to the low-grade exploitation films that Tarantino and fellow cult filmmaker Robert Rodriguez had grown up admiring, it makes sense how the plot of Death Proof is supposed to reflect the visceral simplicity of your typical exploitation film. The main character is arguably the scarred yet affable "Stuntman Mike" (Kurt Russell), who is first seen hanging around a bar where a handful of attractive young women (Sydney Poitier, Vanessa Ferlito, and Jordan Ladd) just happen to be congregating. Though he does come across as a fairly harmless yet charming older man coasting on the glories of his show-business career (well, he is played by Kurt Russell after all), Stuntman Mike soon unveils a darker side as he demonstrates that his "death-proof" muscle-car is capable of protecting him through any car crash - especially those that he causes himself against unsuspecting victims.

Death Proof definitely proves to be a film of two halves as it tracks Stuntman Mike targeting two very different groups of women. The first half plays up his off-kilter charm even before he reveals his true motivations, while the second half treats him as a barely-glimpsed villain who exists only to terrorise. Both halves prove fairly agreeable in their own way, though not without their faults. Much of Death Proof's first half feels way too much like a prelude as it sets up an admittedly uninteresting interpersonal conflict between its heroines over the fact that Poitier's radio DJ has set up Ferlito as a potential romantic target for male listeners before Russell even shows up. While Russell definitely commands the screen whenever he's in a scene, a lot of the time he isn't and so we're given over to the underwhelming conflicts that these ladies get into, whether it's being approached by annoying guys or being stood up by the guys they do like. The second half promises to be a bit more interesting as it focuses on a more capable group of women, though their conversation proves to be even more underwhelming even before it turns to more plot-relevant details such as Zoe Bell (playing herself) wishing to get her hands on the white Dodge Challenger from cult road movie Vanishing Point.

The problem with films like Death Proof is that their dedication to replicating the same cheap thrills provided by exploitation films of a generation past often leaves them prone to the same flaws that could also prevent them being enjoyable even on their own terms. The alternative is to gamble on whether or not an attempt at parody will be understood and appreciated by your audience. In any case, if Tarantino has succeeded at replicating grindhouse cinema then he's definitely replicated the same kind of flaws that make them difficult to sincerely appreciate. This extends to the fact that the second group of women effectively sell out one of their number (in this case Mary Elizabeth Winstead's wholesome cheerleader-looking character) to a creepy hillbilly under incredibly false pretences just so that they have the chance to drive the coveted Dodge Challenger. As a result, it makes it very hard to sympathise with them when they are inevitably attacked by Stuntman Mike. Such flaws only become exacerbated when Tarantino becomes less interested in directly imitating grindhouse films and lets his own narrative idiosyncrasies bleed through, most notably by having many dialogue-heavy scenes - the biggest example becomes an interminable sequence where the latest quartet of future victims has a casual conversation around a café table. The fact that it's done in a single revolving take not only fails to liven things up but it shatters any sense of a grindhouse atmosphere (as does the eventual phasing out of simulated film flaws like damaged prints and missing reels).

It's a shame, then, because there are quite a few elements to Death Proof that promise a genuinely fun experience even on repeated viewings. The instant-replay nature of the film's first big crash, which takes the time to focus on every single death in detail, is an impressive scene on a visual level. The same quality extends to the film's climatic chase sequence, which boasts some solid stunt-work on Bell's part as she is effectively trapped on the bonnet of a speeding car for several minutes of screen-time. Also, there's the quality of Russell's own performance as he covers a variety of modes from craggy charmer to affable villain to miserable punching-bag. Unfortunately, there's too much going against Death Proof for it to be a genuinely enjoyable film. Even in its truncated Grindhouse form (which I'm reviewing instead of the full-length DVD version that adds in the supposed "reel missing" scene - long story short, this was what got aired on TV by itself) it's still something of a chore whenever it opts to spend time on its ostensible victims. There's enough right with it to stop it being genuinely terrible, but there's sadly more than enough wrong with it to stop it being genuinely great.

2

[nebbit]

Nice reviews I don't like either picture :yup:

[cricket]

I liked Blair Witch but hated the Evil Dead remake.

[Iroquois]

#691 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Tobe Hooper, 1974

http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/texas-chainsaw-massacre-1974.jpeg

A group of friends travel to an old house in Texas only to be terrorised by the cannibalistic neighbours.

Comedy and horror are the two genres that are most deliberately designed in order to provoke spontaneous emotional reactions in their audiences, with the former aiming for laughter while the latter aims to induce what could broadly be described as fear. While the best comedies still manage to prove amusing time after time, one wonders how many of the best horrors stay just as scary as they were the first time around. As such, I find that the horror movies I like the most tend to offer something more than just straightforward terror in the form of jump scares or graphic violence. This definitely applies to Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which compensates for its incredibly basic narrative in all sorts of manners. It's rightfully considered one of the prototypical "slasher" films thanks to its plot about a handful of young people gradually getting picked off one by one by a homicidal maniac, but there's a roughness to the plotting that would get refined a bit more with later films like Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street. There's no gimmick or clever twist or anything like that - it's incredibly straightforward in the way that things play out. Of course, the real reason that The Texas Chain Saw Massacre still works is because of, well, everything else.

Though not actually rooted in fact (apart from being loosely inspired by real-life serial killer Ed Gein - much like slasher-movie grandaddy Psycho), The Texas Chain Saw Massacre overcomes its narrative shortcomings by playing out much like a true-crime dramatisation. Starting with the sombre opening narration before opening with a shot of a desecrated corpse and tombstone standing tall against the morning light, things only become more grounded in hyper-reality as the film progresses. The amateur camerawork and editing don't draw attention to themselves in a negative manner but only serve to complement the film's grimy aesthetic, especially when the film veers away from looking like a home movie and starts ratcheting up the horror. Though "Leatherface" (Gunnar Hansen) is naturally the film's most well-known villain due to his human-skin mask and wielding of the eponymous power tool, things get truly weird when the handful of van-driving youths pick up a manic hitch-hiker (Edwin Neal), whose increasingly weird behaviour while inside the group's van is soundtracked by chintzy country-and-western radio and really makes you feel what it's like to be crammed into a van with an obviously deranged person. Other details such as the interior of the cannibal family's house (complete with furniture made of bones and a slaughterhouse instead of a kitchen) get appropriate focus as they become as much a part of the film's atmosphere as the roar of a chainsaw or the simple yet foreboding background music. Atmosphere is a major contribution to how rewatchable (and arguably how good) a film can be because you need something to bring you back once you're familiar enough with the plot.

Horror movie casts have long since become notorious for assembling a number of one-dimensional stereotypes and having the bulk of them be killed arbitrarily (save for the infamous "final girl", of course); while the latter stereotype does show up here, a lot of the tropes are at this point still in the process of forming. The characters are flat, sure, yet they don't exactly fit any of the established stereotypes, if only because they barely get any development whatsoever. The amateur acting can also be a sticking point, especially when it comes to seeing the group's disabled member (Paul A. Partain) make all manner of annoying noises ranging from resentful whining to frightened screaming, to say nothing of the group's inevitable final girl (Marilyn Burns) doing little more than scream her head off for half the movie. Fortunately, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre proves enough of an experience to compensate for any shortcomings in terms of production value or writing. It may lack polish or nuance but that's only because, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't need them. It's obviously not a pleasant or agreeable film, but it manages to convey a certain mood that none of its peers (let alone its imitators) can manage to match.

4.5

[MovieMeditation]

Well-written reviews of Blair Witch and Evil Dead and you explain yourself just fine, but I really didn't like them myself. I guess it's a lot about being captured by the style and atmosphere, because I agree with many of your positives yet the overall experience falls flat for me - in both cases.

Thankfully you finish off rightfully praising a classic like Texas Chainsaw Massacre! I can only agree about that one. The documentary low-budget feel is key and works surprisingly well with this one and the set designs are awesome.

Edit: I've been following the Review section intensely lately, but still missed your taking of the #1 spot. Dammit... Thanks for reminding me, Yoda!

And HUGE congratz on achieving first place, Iro! :cool:

[Yoda]

Wow, congratulations on becoming the most prolific reviewer on the site! I didn't think anyone would catch TUS (who is crazy impressive in his own right):

http://i.imgur.com/Qrnmxqh.png

[seanc]

Great job Iro. Very impressive.

[The Sci-Fi Slob]

Well done. Great some bandages on those fingers!

[nebbit]

congrats mate :)

[honeykid]

Congratulations, Iro. :)

[Iroquois]

Thank you kindly, folks.

[Iroquois]

#692 - Flags of Our Fathers
Clint Eastwood, 2006

http://2e130c55e0c2763c8a20-c7a4d0feffd26319b59c92c4aecae366.r18.cf1.rackcdn.com/27c67a5f49f3a93a7f00111b85097a7efc03b060.jpg

Based on the true story of the men who appeared in the iconic photo of an American flag being raised during the battle for Iwo Jima during World War II.

I go back and forth on whether or not I like Clint Eastwood as a director. He's certainly made some good movies, bu sometimes it's easy to feel like he's just...okay as far as his directorial career goes. Flags of Our Fathers is probably as middling as Eastwood movies are likely to get. It has an interesting concept in that it is based on the behind-the-scenes events surrounding one of the most iconic images in American history; that of a group of soldiers raising the American flag in the middle of a decisive conflict on the island of Iwo Jima. The film jumps about in time, starting off decades after the fact as one veteran becomes deathly ill while another starts narrating the story of what happened. From there, it flits between what happened on that eventful day and also what happens in the meantime as the three surviving members of that photograph (Ryan Philippe, Jesse Bradford, and Adam Beach) are subsequently pulled from active duty and paraded around by the powers-that-be as manufactured war heroes who are made to re-enact their traumatic experience for the gratification of the folks back home. Though things are kept a success on the outside thanks to a tireless team of spokespeople and agents, on the inside the core trio are breaking apart for a number of reasons.

While Flags of Our Fathers isn't necessarily a bad film, it's not exactly one that leaves too much of an impression. One does have to give Eastwood some credit for staging some solid wartime action, even if it does hew a little too close to the frenetic nature of the iconic sequences featured in Saving Private Ryan. At least the careful pacing of revelations regarding the events of that particular day is handled reasonably well. The aftermath proves okay but not striking as it covers the trio's attempts to adjust to life on tour - Beach's character becomes the most notable in that regard as he is made to endure considerable racism (both blatant and subtle) due to his Native American heritage, which only dovetails as his survivor's guilt and alcoholism continue to worsen. In comparison, Bradford's affiliation with his sweetheart (Melanie Lynskey) proves a sticking point for his public-relations agents; Philippe's own survivor's guilt feeds into the proceedings considerably as his engagement with the demands of the heroes' tour only makes his recollections of the actual events prove increasingly troubling.

Flags of Our Fathers is fairly ambitious in how it attempts to jump between different moments in history so as to tell the stories of the men involved and, to a lesser extent, those of the people affected in both great and small ways. This does get a little confusing as the film takes most of its running time to establish the person looking to collect the stories of what happened, which does make it feel underweight when it reaches a conclusion in the most recent time period where these heroes have aged out of their supposedly glorious youths. It's good for one watch, but that's about all there is to this film. I give it credit for attempting to paint a layered portrait of the ugly truth behind a supposedly glorious image, but that doesn't stop it running through some fairly standard period-piece developments that fail to make the film stand out in any sufficiently meaningful way. If you're looking to go through Eastwood's directorial filmography, then this is hardly the worst film you could watch, but that's only because it leaves no serious impact rather than any seriously negative impact. Still looking forward to checking out companion film Letters From Iwo Jima, though.

2.5

[nebbit]

Nice review own both movies :yup:

[honeykid]

I wonder if it's fair to compare this (or any WW2 action set piece of the last 18 years) to SPR when to do anything less is, quite obviously, not up to the mark that film set?

[Iroquois]

I wonder if it's fair to compare this (or any WW2 action set piece of the last 18 years) to SPR when to do anything less is, quite obviously, not up to the mark that film set?

This is a good point.

[Iroquois]

#693 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2
Tobe Hooper, 1986

https://andrewmurphy219.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/tumblr_m6nrhgljt41qclzbio1_500.jpg

A vengeful sheriff joins forces with a radio DJ to track down the family of cannibals who once killed his nephew and traumatised his niece.

I noted before how The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is in a class of its own compared to other well-known "slasher" movies, so it stands to reason that any attempt to spin a franchise out of the film would likewise stand out from the pack. While your typical slasher franchise tends to spawn several sequels of incredibly debatable quality that all featured the central villain going after interchangeable groups of victims, the first sequel to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre goes in a direction that's as left-field as one would expect. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 isn't just content to replicate the same plot by having a whole new collection of youths be killed off by the chainsaw-wielding Leatherface; instead, it constructs a whole new tale based on a sheriff (Dennis Hopper) who is the uncle of the brother and sister who were terrorised during the events of the first film. To this end, he has spent over a decade scouring the state of Texas for the cannibalistic family, who have gone under the radar (with the exception of the family's oldest brother becoming a prize-winning chili cook). Hopper then crosses paths with a radio DJ (Caroline Williams) whose drive to do something more than just play music is cruelly rewarded when a prank call to her station serves as evidence for the killers' presence, which ends up making her their target.

Given how much of what made The Texas Chain Saw Massacre such a distinctive film in the first place is the way in which it compensated for being made on a shoestring budget, one wonders how well the same sensibility would translate to a more expensive production. Hooper at least attempts to offer a variation of the same sort of visual creativity to this film that made the original so great, here substituting '70s grain for '80s flash. There is the odd bit of visual flair, with the most notable example being the scene that introduces the deranged "Chop Top" (Bill Moseley, who is surprisingly tolerable here) and is soaked in giallo-like red and green lighting. The lurid approach extends to the violence on offer; while the original film traded on implication and sparse but effective use of actual gore, the sequel is pretty unapologetic in terms of offering the kind of splatter that one would expect from a movie with the phrase "chainsaw massacre" in its title. The fact that the effects are being provided by the one and only Tom Savini is also a point in the film's favour as scenes like people getting skinned alive or getting their heads sawed in half pepper the film. Throughout it all, the film is anchored by not only Hopper's revenge plot (as he plans on fighting fire with fire by equipping himself with multiple chainsaws) but also Williams as the Southern-fried victim who has to try to survive the ordeal by any means necessary, even when it comes to trying to befriend Leatherface.

The fact that this was produced by the notorious schlock factory that is the Cannon Group is pretty evident as the film is filled with '80s cheese for better or (more frequently) worse. While the film is definitely silly enough that you know not to take it seriously (it's a movie where Dennis Hopper wears a ten-gallon hat and carries a chainsaw in each hand), that's not enough to stop it feeling awfully tedious for the most part. The angle involving Williams is promising enough at first since it gives the character more of an arc than your typical final girl and she's at least got enough personality so as not to prove irritating. However, the film does get hung up on finding new ways to torture her (eventually resorting to replicating the original's climax where the family's elderly patriarch repeatedly tries and fails to kill the heroine with a hammer) and never quite matches the initial radio-station confrontation. There's not much in the way of black comedy either save for the family's dysfunctional squabbling and the ways in which it exaggerates the original's subtext for comic effect (such as Leatherface going so far as to make humping motions while directing his chainsaw at Williams - real subtle, fellas). As such, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is too goofy to really work as a horror and its goofiness isn't enough to prevent it from being a serious slog at times. It's not without its charm or merit, but instances of both are few and far between.

2

[Iroquois]

#694 - Bridge of Spies
Steven Spielberg, 2015

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/dreamworksstudios/bridgeofspies/images/thumbnail_22081.jpg

In 1957, an insurance lawyer is called upon to defend a captured Soviet spy only for things to escalate when the Soviets capture an American spy.

Though Steven Spielberg has made several films that are either major favourites of mine or at least solid films in their own right, for the most part his work just feels alright or mediocre. Given how Spielberg's last couple of films had been the incredibly dry (albeit technically well-made) period-pieces War Horse and Lincoln, I wasn't about to hold out much hope for Bridge of Spies, which only seemed to promise more of the same. After setting the stage with an impressive mostly-silent sequence following a day in the life of a Russian spy (Mark Rylance) that culminates in him being arrested by the CIA, we get to Hanks' character, a fairly nondescript lawyer and family man who is tasked with serving as Rylance's public defender. Though his task is to provide a good show of how the American justice system works, Hanks decides to actually do his job right and ends up upsetting a great number of people as a result. This does draw him a lot of negative attention from people on every level of American society, but his stalwart belief in upholding the system in the face of subtly malevolent patriotism pays off when an American pilot (Austin Stowell) is taken hostage by the Soviets while carrying out a top-secret mission...

Bridge of Spies is unmistakably a Spielberg film, and though such a description is liable to conjure up negative associations regarding the director's tendency to provide simplistic middle-brow crowd-pleasers, I actually find this to be a somewhat pleasant (if not exactly amazing) example of such. Hanks' character is a do-gooder who refuses to let his principles be compromised by, well, just about anybody. It's clear that things are taking a toll, especially when his wife (Amy Ryan) frequently expresses concerns over the effect it is having on their home life. There's also the various other members of his firm and the legal system who seem appalled that Hanks might actually take this job seriously, lending an appropriate amount of insidious nuance to what could have been an extremely bland historical drama. This is very much a film of two halves as the first must set up all the players, yet it doesn't feel stretched-out or boring even as it does indulge some very familiar tropes (there is at least one scene where Hanks gives an upstanding closing statement monologue defending Rylance that still worked in spite of itself). The second half does pick up a bit as Hanks' character is made to go and negotiate the exchange of hostages, which is complicated when an American student is caught on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall and incarcerated by the East Germans.

In a year where most of the major spy films have aimed for pure thrills and amusement, Bridge of Spies provides a solid counterpoint as a film that focuses on the mundane yet dangerous world of real-world espionage. The film definitely shows Spielberg at his most dependable as it doesn't come across as an instant classic but definitely doesn't feel like a misfire either. It may prove a little alienating with its focus on the intricacies on legal negotiations and whatnot, but it's paced reasonably well with the occasional moments of action or tension (most notably the scene where Stowell's character fails his mission). Characters aren't really much more than well-acted archetypes, though Rylance delivers a performance that stands out precisely because of how much his character does not stand out (and his matter-of-fact countenance is played for both comical and dramatic effect). Spielberg can still command a technically masterful film that fittingly I also have to give credit to the writing (especially since the script credits the Coen brothers as co-writers) for offering some much-needed nuance and a wry sense of humour to a film that could have been yet another bland (if technically decent) historical drama in Spielberg's filmography. There's enough of his fingerprints over it that if you find him disagreeable in general then you might as well avoid it anyway, but it's far from the worst film he's ever made.

3

[Mr.Sparkle]

Very impressive. Congrats Iro on being #1 !!!!!

[Iroquois]

#695 - Top Secret!
Jim Abrahams/David Zucker/Jerry Zucker, 1984

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-x_rnL0lQOsw/TuWGolatMqI/AAAAAAAAAGY/HjWTn8xc1io/s1600/top-secret.jpg

An American pop star travels to East Germany as part of a cultural exchange but soon becomes embroiled in the fight against an evil conspiracy.

Airplane! has rightfully earned a reputation as one of the best comedies ever made thanks to its combination of rapid-fire one-liners, outlandish sight gags, and heavily referential parody of the popular "disaster" sub-genre. The trio of comedy filmmakers responsible (hereafter referred to as ZAZ) followed it up with another genre parody that went a bit more left-field with its targets of choice. Top Secret! spoofs not only spoofs spy movies but also war movies and Elvis Presley movies, which makes for an eclectic mix that somehow works. Val Kilmer makes his big-screen debut as the fresh-faced young pop star who finds himself caught in the middle of a conflict centred around a scientist (Michael Gough) who is being held captive by the oppressive East German military. He meets a young woman (Lucy Gutteridge) who is a member of the underground resistance and so they go on an adventure that involves them getting into and out of trouble. As with other ZAZ comedies like Airplane! or The Naked Gun, the plot is done in broad strokes and only needs to work enough to not distract from the comedy itself.

Top Secret! may not be the best film that ZAZ have ever made but it's still pretty consistent in terms of laughs. There is the odd joke that's a little predictable ("I know a little German") or a little off-colour (the whole cow scene) to actually be that funny, but for the most part it's still solid enough even on a repeat viewing. Kilmer is pretty good when it comes to imitating Elvis's voice and mannerisms and he manages to make the film's occasional musical number work as a result. The cast may not feature as many recognisable faces as Airplane! did, but that doesn't mean that the ones on display here don't commit, whether it's Omar Sharif as a straight-faced secret agent or Peter Cushing as a Swedish bookstore owner. As is to be expected, the film is packed to the gills with gags that run the gamut from wordplay to surreal visuals. While the ambition is clear enough in the staging of comical musical numbers, it also extends to some of the gags (most memorably Cushing's only scene, which is a long take filmed entirely in reverse). As is the case with many a good parody, you don't automatically need to know what the jokes are referencing in order to find them funny. As a result, Top Secret! ends up being a very amusing comedy that holds up on repeat viewings and does well on its own merits instead of feeling like an underwhelming spiritual successor to one of the greatest comedies of the 1980s.

3.5

[honeykid]

Top Secret! is something I've seen quite a few times as it was one of the (relatively few) films that I had in the mid 80's. I have to confess I started to feel less and less for it as the rewatches piled up, but it's been 20 odd years since I last saw it and I think I'd think more kindly on it now.

[Iroquois]

#696 - Hachi: A Dog's Tale
Lasse Hallström, 2009

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4783604.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/Hachi-A-Dogs-Tale.jpg

A college professor finds a lost dog and eventually decides to keep him.

I vaguely remember hearing the famous true story of Hachi the akita, but it had been long enough that I'd forgotten the specifics by the time that I ended seeing this American film based very loosely on said story. As such, I won't go into details in case people are not aware of the story - if you're really that interested then by all means go look it up, but I think there's something to be said for going in with as little conscious knowledge of the details as possible. I was originally intrigued by the fact that this film was on the IMDb Top 250. While that user-generated chart isn't necessarily the greatest indicator of a film's quality, the idea that a little movie about Richard Gere and his pet dog had been rated so highly was more than enough to make me sit up and wonder just what made this film so special. The film starts with an opening montage that sees an akita puppy being transported from a Japanese temple to an American college town only for his cage to lose the address tag and fall off the baggage cart. The forgotten puppy is discovered by a college professor (Richard Gere) coming home from work; being unable to leave it at the station overnight, he takes it home even though he knows that his wife (Joan Allen) won't stand for it. Though he does his best to find the dog's rightful owner or at least give it a good home, he ultimately ends up keeping the dog and together they form a powerful bond.

To go into further detail would definitely spoil this incredibly brief and lean film, but I think I've given it enough of a set-up. Considering how it's got an animal for a main character and is categorised as a drama, one can easily guess as to how this story is likely to turn out even without knowing the truth of the matter. As such, one can easily feel like the film is going for an easy emotional response as it starts off its story with scenes of a distressed puppy and only proceeds to keep tugging on the audience's heartstrings as things progress. Though this has the potential to alienate an audience who can see how the film is apparently trying to play them and will actively resist its methods (which is honestly how I felt myself reacting a lot of the time), it's compensated for by the extremely earnest manner in which it's handled. The film finds room to breathe within its incredibly straightforward narrative as it shows the ways in which everyone gradually warms up to the adorable dog (even if he shows no interest in normal dog pastimes like playing fetch). I can't decide if this is the film's greatest strength or its most glaring flaw as there does come a moment two-thirds of the way through that will make the unaware wonder how the film could possibly fill its remaining running time.

The acting by the various dogs needed to play Hachi at various ages all do commendable jobs, while a cast of largely recognisable human actors do alright with some fairly standard roles. Gere and Allen anchor the film alright as an older married couple who do have their fair share of arguments (especially when Hachi arrives on the scene) but they still have believable chemistry, while the film peppers its small number of settings with basic but fairly believable characters. Of note is the trio of locals (Jason Alexander, Erick Avari, and Davenia McFadden) who work in the area surrounding the train station where Gere and Hachi part ways and reunite every day, thus lending the area some much-needed character. The presence of Cary Hiroyuki-Tagawa as a colleague of Gere's who is able to provide Japan-related exposition does seem more than a little convenient for the story's needs, but it's carried off well as Hiroyuki-Tagawa plays a soft and empathetic role that's a far cry from the villains I'm used to seeing him play. Such a decision also serves as a sign of how the story does try to stay true to the spirit of the original Hachi by not diverging too greatly from the story's Japanese origins.

Hachi: A Dog's Tale definitely feels quite lightweight due to its decision to trade narrative complexity for emotional simplicity; it's easy to recognise the story's beats and after the "twist" comes the film does threaten to turn into a slog. In the hands of lesser filmmakers this could have become little more than manipulative drivel (and it doesn't start too promisingly with its framing story showcasing Gere's young grandson talking to his class about Hachi), but despite constantly threatening to do so it never quite falls into that category. The music is appropriately understated and conjures the right mood without feeling overly obtrusive; the visual style also does its best to avoid being distracting with the occasional concession to cinematic stylisation (such as multiple shots being done from Hachi's point of view). Despite all its shortcomings, it just works. Thinking about it as I write this review over a week later makes me remember the feelings just as much as I remember the usual details like performances or technique. There's no telling if I'll ever actually give Hachi: A Dog's Tale another viewing, but I think the fact that I still found it at least a little moving despite consciously refusing to let it truly get to me should say a lot about its emotional potency even in the face of knee-jerk cynicism. While that may not automatically speak to its overall quality as a film, I definitely feel that its sincere and uncomplicated take on its subject matter definitely makes it a good experience instead of a bad one.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Congrats on surpassing me Iro. It only took you reviewing a dozen movies a day and a 4 month hiatus from me to do it!!! :)

[Iroquois]

#697 - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Sergio Leone, 1966

http://ourgoldenage.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/GAC_GoodBad.jpg

During the American Civil War, a trio of gunslingers compete against each other in order to be the first to find a buried crate of Confederate gold.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is arguably the closest there is to a consensus pick for Sergio Leone's best film and I don't see much reason to disagree with that assessment. It sees the conclusion of the loosely-connected Dollars trilogy, a collection of features united mainly by the presence of Clint Eastwood as a gruff, steely-eyed gunslinger who has little motivation beyond acquiring money through frequently violent means (and also apparently playing separate characters in each film). A Fistful of Dollars saw him play both sides of a border-town gang war for as much cash as possible, while For a Few Dollars More saw him team up with Lee Van Cleef's rival bounty hunter in order to claim one extremely lucrative reward. Elements of both those films find their way into the third film as it involves constantly-shifting loyalties and unlikely companions working their way towards an incredible prize; this time around it's a box of gold buried by some rogue Confederate soldiers. A series of unfortunate events results in the box drawing the attention of three separate men. Eastwood is the supposedly "good" character, a bounty hunter who has a scam worked out with Eli Wallach's "ugly" bandit that involves Eastwood constantly capturing and releasing Wallach in order to keep claiming the bounties on Wallach's head. Meanwhile, there's a hired killer (Van Cleef) who quickly establishes himself as the "bad" when he shows himself willing to stop at nothing in order to claim what he believes is his.

While Leone would expand upon the epic scope with his later films, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly features that scope without sacrificing the personality that made his first two films so much fun to watch in the first place. Much of that is due to the three leads. Eastwood's iconic presence full of grit and squint manages to compensate for his character's more glaring flaws, as does Van Cleef's gleefully sadistic turn as a character who is similar to Eastwood's in terms of motivation and competence but is far more brutal in his treatment of others. Caught between these two is Wallach, who may be a callous criminal (and listening to court officials rattle off some especially despicable-sounding crimes does make liking him seem very questionable even if you were to assume that they were made up for the purposes of the scam) but he's far and away the most human of the three. While Eastwood and Van Cleef play some rather flat characters (albeit with their own little moments that hint at greater depths, such as Eastwood idly playing with a kitten at one point), Wallach is the grimy, rat-faced heart of the film; without him, things just don't work. His extremely animated delivery and mannerisms certainly make him an excellent counter-point to the laconic coolness of the other two leads to the point where attempts to develop his backstory don't feel like intrusions. Though it's easy to miss the rest of the cast, one can't help but note minor characters like a brutish one-eyed soldier or a drunken captain with dreams of destruction.

In a similar vein to Kubrick, Leone is only so concerned with developing his characters as they serve to prop up the rest of the film. Even then, the epic nature of the tale does have its fair share of lulls, especially when you end up watching the Restored Edition (which doesn't really add anything of note). While Leone is a filmmaker who has built a reputation on slow and deliberate pacing, there are some instances where it is felt in a less-than-preferable way. Fortunately, things are kept rolling along at a strong enough pace that such instances are rare and ultimately negligible. Being a film where actions frequently speak louder than words, what little dialogue there is ends up being extremely blunt for the most part (though I do wonder if something is lost in the translation from Italian to English), but that only adds to the film's rugged, laconic charm. The film definitely excels at visual storytelling and manages to use a wide variety of techniques to maximum effect, whether it's sweeping panoramic shots of the dusty scenery or the infamously tight close-ups on the characters' filthy, sweaty faces Though it's easy to write off the film's eclectic use of cinematic language as being just for show and occasionally resulting in a plot hole, these instances are simply a by-product and to allow yourself to be too distracted by them is like noticing the edge of a theatre stage. The intent behind such bombastic cinematic tools is easily observable; it was only on this most recent viewing that I noticed how carefully orchestrated every shot, cut, and character action in the film's iconic climax is meant to be. The more tacitly dangerous moments are great, such as Wallach being made to do a potentially lethal stunt involving an oncoming train or flying debris threatening to strike our leads for real.

The reason that The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly has endured for almost fifty years after its release is that it manages to create a grand work of cinema without succumbing to the same dry stuffiness and broad sentiment that could and would undermine other epics of the era. The film isn't exactly devoid of sentiment either as it adds in moments great and small that stop the film and its characters from being a bland, apathy-inducing (but good-looking) mess. The hypocrisy of the so-called civilised folks is a hold-over from the last couple of films, but that soon bleeds into superficial anti-war rhetoric as the trio venture from relatively peaceful frontier towns to a number of war-torn locations, each one more miserable than the last. These range from stockades where prisoners are made to play music to cover the sound of their comrades being tortured to a strategically redundant bridge that is still the place where a bloody and pointless battle rages without end. This being a film about a bunch of cowboys trying to kill each other over some money, it's of course unsurprising that any trenchant anti-war commentary serves as little more than window-dressing to the film's main plot. Even that knowledge isn't enough to prevent this from being an out-and-out fun film that is most definitely worth busting out again and again...and I never even mentioned Ennio Morricone's score.

5

[Iroquois]

#698 - Videodrome
David Cronenberg, 1983

http://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/images/Videodrome1.jpg

A sleazy cable-TV producer who is searching for provocative new programs discovers a horribly twisted new program dedicated to non-stop violence.

I have a rather contentious attitude towards David Cronenberg. I've seen several of his films and found that, for the most part, they range from the decent to the unimpressive. I give him credit for at least being an ambitious auteur working to bring some uncomfortable blends of emotion and intellect to a variety of genres in such a way that I'll definitely make an effort to see as much of his work as possible, but I have trouble considering any of them favourites or classics...except for Videodrome. Quite fittingly, I first watched Videodrome on cable-TV many years ago and it still remains one of the most indelible movie-watching experiences I've ever had. The storytelling was swift and unpredictable, the effects were disturbing, the film as a whole was extremely unsettling...in other words, it was the opposite of The Fly. Even watching it now, it's still a decidedly uncomfortable experience, but that's just a sign that it's lost none of its potency. Videodrome follows an executive (James Woods) from a controversial cable-TV station as he looks for exciting new programs to draw in audiences. Being bored by anything that he deems too "soft", things take a turn when his video-pirating colleague (Peter Dvorsky) unearths the eponymous "Videodrome", a show that consists of nothing but scenes of people being brutally tortured by masked figures in a filthy room. Woods decides this is just the sort of show that he's looking for, but his discovery only sends him into one very nightmarish rabbit-hole...

Part of what makes Videodrome stand out among the rest of Cronenberg's body-horror films is that its focus on early-'80s technology does nothing to render the film a relic of the past. Several decades later, its sinister commentary on the pervasive nature of widespread scenes of sex, violence, and the twisted ways in which they blend together still holds very much true regardless of technological advancement. There are even less overtly sinister ways in which television bleeds into modern society, such as a religious charity that provides television to homeless people instead of food. Amidst all this weirdness, Woods proves the perfect centre for the film as the slimy exec who quite blatantly prioritises commerce and controversy over any kind of moral or artistic integrity. He is matched by a number of different characters who represent varying attitudes towards not only Videodrome but also the very nature of mass media itself. The most prominent of these is easily Blondie frontwoman Debbie Harry as a radio host whose extremely liberal attitudes both unnerve and entice Woods, though the presence of Jack Creley as a Marshall McLuhan-like academic who only ever appears on videotape is a weird one that still seems strangely plausible. Everyone turns in solid performances that may come across as stiff or stilted but that's arguably the point in a film about how technology is changing the ways in which people interact.

A lot of credit for what makes Videodrome such an outstanding film has to go to the legendary Rick Baker, who provides some excellent practical effects that convey the extremely visceral ways in which Videodrome starts to affect the people who are exposed to it. The film's most notorious moment involves Woods' torso mutating during a session with Videodrome, while there are also instances of gory explosions and pulsating pieces of technology. None of this would really be effective if it wasn't for the way in which the editing and pacing leads to viewers constantly questioning exactly how much of the film is real or simply Videodrome-induced hallucination (or both). Thanks to its lean running time, it keeps utilitarian development to a minimum and doesn't get boring even after multiple viewings. Howard Shore's frequently foreboding and artificial-sounding score only serves to accentuate the mechanical mood of the film. These are just some of the many factors that contribute to Videodrome having staying power in a way that few other Cronenberg films come close to reaching. Just like the eponymous program, it is outwardly gross and borderline-unwatchable (though one could easily consider it tame by present-day standards) but not without reason. That's what makes it a classic.

4.5

[Iroquois]

#699 - Broken Flowers
Jim Jarmusch, 2005

http://criticsroundup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/broken-flowers-still.jpg

An old businessman receives an anonymous letter informing him that he has a son so he compiles a list of ex-girlfriends and sets out to visit them all.

Sometimes I feel like appreciating Jim Jarmusch on the back of his more ostensibly accessible genre films like Dead Man or Only Lovers Left Alive is only scratching the surface of his film-making career, especially when he made his name off the back off unorthodox interpersonal dramas where the complete lack of obvious style became its own style. Of course, one could just as easily make the case for Broken Flowers being Jarmusch's own take on the detective genre. The film starts by following a wealthy, ageing businessman (Bill Murray) who has just had his younger girlfriend (Julie Delpy) walk out on him. The mystery starts when he receives a letter typed in red ink on pink paper from an unspecified former lover; this letter informs him about a son that he never knew about. Spurred on by his detective wannabe friend (Jeffrey Wright), Murray makes a list of all the women who could have possibly written the letter before reluctantly going on a cross-country trip to figure out which one may have sent him the letter. It's a solid concept that could definitely have been played for much more emotional and dramatic effect by another director but in the hands of Jarmusch the resulting film is much more understated.

Of course, I do wonder if Broken Flowers might be a little too understated for its own good. It certainly assembles a strong cast; Murray builds off the same weary ennui that earned him acclaim in Lost in Translation and makes for a good presence to centre the film around. As with several of Jarmusch's other films, the most well-known actors may get little more than a scene or two of varying length but they still commit and deliver decent performances. The film's episodic nature does make it feel a bit listless; while listlessness does characterise just about every film Jarmusch has ever made, it feels a bit too pronounced here. His tendency to once again include low-key running gags does fit the extremely deadpan nature of the comedy on offer, though this naturally isn't the kind of comedy that induces a lot of chuckles. Still, Broken Flowers is definitely worth a watch due to the quality of the cast and the way in which the film is peppered with the odd good moment. Like just about every Jarmusch film, it is at once an off-putting film to those who can't quite get into his off-beat brand of cinema and a serviceable entry point for those who can - that being said, he has definitely done better when it comes to low-key character dramas.

3

[nebbit]

I'm a http://www.bestemoticon.com/smiley/electromenager/electromenager-2.gif of Broken Flowers :yup:

[MovieMeditation]

Damn. I couldn't even do one movie per day and you look to be hitting and probably surpassing an average of two movies per day WITH full length reviews. Holy crap. :eek:

[Iroquois]

Damn. I couldn't even do one movie per day and you look to be hitting and probably surpassing an average of two movies per day WITH full length reviews. Holy crap. :eek:

On the flip-side, putting in that much effort (plus playing a lot of Fallout 4 and, you know, living a life) still means that I'm about ten or so films behind even though my film-watching has actually slowed down this month.

[MovieMeditation]

Nevertheless impressive.

I'm 3 months behind on reviews... Dammit.

[Iroquois]

#700 - The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara
Errol Morris, 2003

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_m47RlRiYoAg/S9qSW4OYzAI/AAAAAAAAHnc/hEemo1InSAA/s1600/The.Fog.of.War.20031.jpg

Former U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert S. McNamara discusses his experiences as both a soldier in World War II and as Secretary of Defence during the Vietnam War.

Though I've watched my fair share of documentaries, I'm not sure how many of the best ones that I've watched really hold up on repeated viewings (if I give them another viewing, of course). This was running through my mind when I opted to re-watch Errol Morris' The Fog of War, which took the form of an interview with Robert Strange McNamara, a World War II veteran who later went on to serve as the Secretary of Defence under both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. As of writing, the only other Morris film I've seen is The Thin Blue Line, which offered a fascinating insight into a miscarriage of justice and the various individuals involved. The Fog of War focuses mainly on one individual and is intended to be framed as a face-to-face conversation for the most part. To this end, Morris uses a device known as the "Interrotron" that results in a visually creative method of simulating McNamara speaking directly to the audience. McNamara's topics of conversation cover a variety of subjects from his upbringing and personal life through to his time as both a soldier and as a strategist; Morris adds clarity and structure by sorting McNamara's monologues into eleven simple "lessons" about the art of war.

On a visual level, Morris uses a heady mix of archival footage, reconstructions, and atypical camera angles when filming McNamara (shots of McNamara are often noticeably slanted or distorted due to the Interrotron's design) and cuts from scene to scene with a speed that does not prove disorienting. Philip Glass provides a modern classical score that manages to be appropriately tense yet subtle as it bubbles away under images of falling bombs or high-powered assemblies. These prove compelling elements that serve to accentuate (rather than distract from) McNamara himself. The film aims to be impartial and it seems to succeed as McNamara's reasoning is definitely open to interpretation regardless of one's own political bias. Some of his explanations for certain objectionable actions taken by the United States during wartime do come across as attempts to rationalise what happened for reasons other than the sake of mere description. These are balanced against moments that do humanise him regardless of whether or not they render him sympathetic in an audience's eyes - his tearful recollection of the Kennedy assassination is the best example of this and is matched only by the final line of the film.

As a documentary, The Fog of War succeeds on multiple levels. Morris' decision to frame McNamara's anecdotes and insights through the framework of him imparting lessons is a brilliant one. The film does not explicitly seek to praise or condemn McNamara - it just wants to learn from him. As a result, the film produces a fascinating portrait of a man who had to make tough choices and live with the consequences. Much like the person who imparts them, the lessons about war are not meant to encourage conflict so much as try to help others reach a better understanding of what's important about conflict regardless of their attitudes. Obviously, these are not liable to actually prevent war completely, but this doesn't make them come across as empty platitudes either. In addition to providing an interesting perspective on the theatre of war, the film also offers enough visual and sonic flair so that you're not likely to get bored even on a second viewing.

4

[Iroquois]

#701 - Ultraviolet
Kurt Wimmer, 2006

http://www.tarkanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ultr.png

In a dystopia that has developed following the release of a vampire-like virus, a member of the resistance recovers the key to the conflict's resolution.

I remember really liking Kurt Wimmer's Equilibrium when I first saw it over a decade ago. It may have been little more than a mishmash of dystopian clichés that shamelessly borrowed its visual aesthetic of leather trenchcoats and acrobatic gunplay from The Matrix, but I still enjoyed it well enough. Despite that, I put off watching Wimmer's follow-up film Ultraviolet for years - a lot of that had to do with the unfortunate reputation that it earned even from people who had liked Equilibrium, especially when one takes into account that Wimmer hasn't directed a film in the years since. The basic premise certainly does make the man out to be a one-trick pony as it recycles a lot of the same elements from Equilibrium. A futuristic dystopia where a corrupt government works to oppress a resistance movement that depends on an extremely proficient yet conflicted warrior to save the day? It is awfully familiar. This time around the nature of the conflict isn't rooted in the repressing of people's emotions to prevent war; rather, Ultraviolet takes place following the dissemination of a virus that infects people with vampiric characteristics, with the infected individuals being referred to as "hemophages". One such individual (Milla Jovovich) emerges as the unlikely heroine who is carrying out a heist for her fellow rebels when she learns that her cargo is actually a small child who might hold the key to curing the plague...

Ultraviolet seems to be caught between rehashing Equilibrium or making conscious efforts to define itself in opposition, which only leads me to wonder which of these outcomes is worse or if their combination just makes things into more of a mess. The comic-book style of the opening credits primes viewers for a vibrant and fantastic adventure far away from the deliberately dull and lifeless world of Equilibrium, but the special effects used to bring the world of Ultraviolet to life make the film look like a cartoon in a bad way. The plot does throw in a bunch of tiresome twists to its well-worn "living MacGuffin" narrative and makes you feel way too much of its extremely brief running time, especially when it delves into its convoluted mythology. The film tries to deliver a blend of gunplay, swordplay, and martial arts but nothing stands out on its own terms. Performances aren't much better - Jovovich once again gets to play a capable action hero with a tragic back-story to barely emote over, while Nick Chinlund plays yet another creepy, gravel-voiced villain. At this point, I'm honestly struggling to think of things to write about Ultraviolet. Its grossly derivative nature renders it such a non-entity of a film that the only thing I can be sure of is that there was nothing to like about it. Even if you tried to take it as a style-over-substance type of film (and that's probably the intent), you'd still be let down by the fact that the style is ultimately pretty awful.

1

[cricket]

The Fog of War sounds good; I added it to my watchlist for the documentary countdown.

[nebbit]

#701 - Ultraviolet
Kurt Wimmer, 2006

http://www.tarkanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ultr.png


Even if you tried to take it as a style-over-substance type of film (and that's probably the intent), you'd still be let down by the fact that the style is ultimately pretty awful.

1
I bought this on Bluray for $5 and I was robbed :laugh:

[Iroquois]

You seem to buy an awful lot of bad movies, nebbit. Why?

[Daniel M]

Some more excellent reviews, Videodrome is one of my favourite films...

it still remains one of the most indelible movie-watching experiences I've ever had. The storytelling was swift and unpredictable, the effects were disturbing, the film as a whole was extremely unsettling...in other words, it was the opposite of The Fly. Even watching it now, it's still a decidedly uncomfortable experience, but that's just a sign that it's lost none of its potency.

This describes how I felt when I watched it very well. I'm not sure what it was, but from the beginning the film felt dirty too me, like it was getting under my skin, uncomfortable and unsettling as you say.

[nebbit]

You seem to buy an awful lot of bad movies, nebbit. Why?
I don't have a video shop nearby so I buy movies sometimes just because they are cheap that I haven't seen :rolleyes: then give then to the salvation army op shop :yup:

[Iroquois]

I don't have a video shop nearby so I buy movies sometimes just because they are cheap that I haven't seen :rolleyes: then give then to the salvation army op shop :yup:

That's understandable. Fortunately, I still have a video store within easy access but since they're dropping like flies there's no telling how long this one will last. I'm sure I'll become slightly more discerning if I have to resort to blind-buying DVDs.

[nebbit]

That's understandable. Fortunately, I still have a video store within easy access but since they're dropping like flies there's no telling how long this one will last. I'm sure I'll become slightly more discerning if I have to resort to blind-buying DVDs.
I have become more discerning as I have watched a lot of rubbish buy this method :bored:

[Iroquois]

#702 - Spectre
Sam Mendes, 2015

http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Screen-Shot-2015-03-28-at-00.42.08.png

A British secret agent goes rogue in order to track down a clandestine organisation of terrorists.

Spectre had some pretty difficult expectations to live up to. Not only is it following the wildly successful Skyfall but it's also coming at the tail end of 2015, which has been quite the banner year for spy movies. Kingsman: The Secret Service, The Man From U.N.C.L.E., and Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation are just a handful of the spy films that have come out this year with the intention of providing rip-roaring escapism that invoked everything from comedic pastiche to retro homage to straight-up action. Unfortunately, while these would seem to serve as apparent appetisers for the main course that is the latest installment in the world's premiere spy franchise, they also serve to undermine Spectre by exposing just how similar it is to those particular films. While I naturally have to take the long-running franchise's widespread influence into account before accusing it of being a rip-off, that still doesn't prevent Spectre itself from feeling all kinds of familiar. For starters, there's the fact that the plot is eerily similar to that of Rogue Nation, though it's not without justification. While Bond (Daniel Craig) is like Ethan Hunt in that he is made to go rogue in pursuit of a shadowy collective of operatives looking to cause global mayhem for fun and profit, that is at least backed up by the previous Craig films working to establish the existence of such a collective.

To be fair, it's not like Spectre doesn't lack for ambition at times - if nothing else, the opening sequence that crafts an elaborate tracking shot following Bond as he makes his way through the crowded streets of Mexico City is definitely a stand-out even before it leads into a daring fight on board an out-of-control helicopter. Of course, that ambition peters out very quickly over the course of 148 incredibly staggering minutes. Granted, even the shortest Bond movies do have their fair share of sluggish moments, but this only becomes more pronounced in Spectre as it drags things out unnecessarily during Bond's investigations in ways that feel like they're forced to fill out formulaic criteria. A good example of this is the entire series of scenes involving Monica Bellucci as one villain's widow (and a potential lead for Bond), which could have been axed without the film losing anything of worth (Bellucci herself notwithstanding). The fact that the film keeps trying to tease out the mystery behind Spectre and the rather unsurprising revelations surrounding its leader (Christoph Waltz, whose trademark smarminess wears thin even during his limited amount of screen-time) only contributes to the film being an overly long bore. That's without bringing up the extremely clunky (even for Bond) romantic sub-plot that develops between Bond and the young doctor (Léa Seydoux) who has a very personal connection to the conspiracy.

Given how much Spectre is content to stretch things out, one might expect it to offer some decent characterisation to go along with its lengthy narrative. The past three Craig films have worked as one massive origin story for Bond that detailed his journey from rough-edged recruit to dispassionate professional as he endures greater and greater trials and also saw the assembly of whole new versions of series regulars such as M (Ralph Fiennes), Q (Ben Whishaw), and Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). Here, they lapse into the well-worn roles that existed in classic Bond and each have their own recognisable modes of banter with Bond - M's cultured British variation on the turn-in-your-badge boss, Q's prim yet sardonic lecturing, and Moneypenny's cheeky yet distant flirtations. The actors involved are solid enough, but the writing isn't there to back them up. Craig himself doesn't fare much better; though his Bond has always been a stony-faced cad whose sentimental side is barely glimpsed and often has ulterior motives (especially when it comes to the majority of the women he's encountered), this shouldn't translate into him coming across as a grouchy dullard for most of this film. While Bond girls don't exactly get the most nuanced development at the best of times, here it's just so messy and the actresses' ability isn't enough to make a difference. I already pointed out how incredibly extraneous Bellucci's character ends up being, but Seydoux's ostensibly meatier role definitely doesn't make much of its potential and instead lapses into not only a lot of the usual Bond clichés but some decidedly more generic action movie love-interest clichés.

These problems are pretty severe, but the main problem with the Bond series in general is that it attempts to reinvent the character year after year in response to not just cinematic trends but also to changing social and political norms. While this ostensibly makes sense as it needs to stay fresh one way or another, it only serves to create an inherently conflicted franchise, especially when the reinventions tend not to stick and Bond movies invariably lapse back into ludicrous goofiness - just look at Pierce Brosnan's tenure. James Bond's original status as a power fantasy for white males resulted in a lot of the work being quite racist, sexist, and politically conservative, so of course there have been several attempt to redefine Bond in ways that try to correct or at least criticise the character's more problematic flaws while still trying to stay true to the character's basic appeal. This much is represented in the film by a smug executive (Andrew Scott) whose plan to launch an all-encompassing surveillance network will supposedly render field agents like Bond obsolete, while the film does pay some more lip-service to criticism by having characters straight-up ask Bond just why he keeps doing what he does. The problem with such acknowledgements of Bond fiction's fundamental shortcomings is that they do ultimately feel insincere when faced with the demands of a Bond narrative (or at least in this particular Bond narrative). A large part of Spectre is about Bond confronting even more of his past traumas in the name of revenge, but even when the film opts to delve into the man's psychology it's usually just serving as filler between action scenes or plot-related exposition.

Even though the plot of a Bond movie only serves as the foundation on which a variety of entertaining assets can be built, there is still a lot left to be desired about Spectre. The aforementioned opening only goes so far when the film runs through yet another collection of familiar Bond set-pieces to largely unremarkable effect. While the earlier Craig films have tried to re-invent Bond in a way that avoids the series' more fantastic elements such as cartoonish supervillains and elaborate gadgets, those elements slowly but surely bled through into Skyfall and are now in full-force with Spectre. This would be tolerable if only they yielded decent results. To be fair, there is a nice little homage to the series' various train-carriage battles with a fight between Bond and a henchman (Dave Bautista, whose role as a silent brute echoes classic Bond henchmen like Oddjob or Jaws without quite managing the same level of personality as those two, which is a shame considering how well Bautista played an eccentric yet dangerous warrior in Guardians in the Galaxy). However, this is compromised by the fact that the vehicular chases tend to be rather tedious affairs that are dependent on creating spectacular destruction or easy character-based humour in lieu of any serious thrills. This also ends up providing another example of how the film's length works against it as the deliberate subversion of the standard Bond movie climax only serves to make one look at their watch rather than get excited for what could possibly be coming next.

One of the most striking things about Skyfall was the studied high-contrast cinematography courtesy of veteran Roger Deakins, so replacing him with Hoyte van Hoytema is a noticeable shift that may result in some technical flair (case in point - the opening shot) and avoids devolving into empty shakycam but its emphasis on low-contrast camerawork definitely makes the film look more than a little bland. To this end, Thomas Newman's score mixes classic Bond bombast with contemporary guitar-based chugging to debatable effect; that's without mentioning the incredibly limp theme song performed by Sam Smith over the tiresome opening credits. Such elements combine to make for a film that could generously be described as one of the most middling Bond films ever made, which definitely makes it a far cry from being a genuinely good film. The fact that it is not only the most expensive Bond film to date but also one of the most expensive films ever made does make it feel extremely safe. It attempts to temper the classic Bond formula with the sensibilities of Craig-era Bond and also throws in some straightforward blockbuster traits for good measure, though the resulting mixture doesn't gel smoothly. If this is to be the final instance of Craig donning a tuxedo and wielding a Walther PPK, then it's hardly the worst film with which to leave the franchise - unfortunately, it is hardly the best either.

2.5

[edarsenal]

finally had a chance to back-log some of your reviews; some very solid reviews an CONGRATS on hitting #1 for most reviews -- SH*T that's a lot!!

Agree a lot with Ultraviolet. It always seems to be like there's a bunch of the film sitting on the cutting floor and kept it on a low radar for a possible Director's Cut. Whether or not it would save it or not is anyone's guess.

[Iroquois]

#703 - Ulzana's Raid
Robert Aldrich, 1972

http://www.popoptiq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ulzanasraid.jpg

When a vicious gang of Apache warriors breaks loose to wreak havoc, a military unit is sent to track them down.

I wasn't too impressed by Apache, the other Western I'd seen that starred Burt Lancaster and was directed by Robert Aldrich. It was a lean film with a potentially interesting premise about an escaped Apache warrior looking to return to his old life despite being pursued by the law, but it was too underweight and Lancaster was not very convincing as a Native American. In this context, the duo's 1972 collaboration Ulzana's Raid seems to subvert that very same premise. The story is once again about an Apache warrior (the Ulzana of the title) escaping the white man's custody; unlike the noble savage played in Lancaster in Apache, Ulzana gets together a war party and plans to wreak vengeful havoc upon any defenceless whites he can find. To this end, a posse of soldiers (including Lancaster as an ageing Army scout) and an Apache scout with ties to Ulzana are sent out to find the marauders and stop them.

Ulzana's Raid is a technically decent film and it takes advantage of the less restricted censorship codes to show scenes of violence that are surprisingly bloody even when considering that this film came out in 1972. Lancaster definitely makes a better fit as a world-weary white man than he does as a beat-down Apache, while Bruce Davison and Jorge Luke make for good foils to both him and one another as the naive, religious lieutenant and the embittered Apache scout respectively. The straightforward search-and-destroy narrative is supplanted reasonably well by some commentary on the nature of Native American genocide (with some decent exchanges between Davison and Luke) but all things considered this feels very par for the course as far as Westerns go. I grant it credit for trying to add depth to what could have been an extremely simple cowboys-and-Indians kind of movie but beyond that it doesn't feel all that special.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#704 - Broken Arrow
Delmer Daves, 1950

http://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/_img/972-2.jpg

In 1880s Arizona, a white man befriends an Apache war chief and becomes embroiled in a multi-sided conflict.

Another day, another movie about the unsurprisingly complicated relations between white Americans and Native Americans. Broken Arrow is rooted in historical fact as it sees Jimmy Stewart play a white man whose basic human decency towards a wounded Apache boy gradually results in him earning their trust, though his fellow whites still regard the tribe as bloodthirsty savages and have trouble believing that he was able to maintain genuinely peaceful relations with them. Stewart's character then does his best to broker something stronger than an uneasy cease-fire as he becomes more and more involved with the Apaches as he befriends their leader (Jeff Chandler) and starts to warm to one of the tribe's women (Debra Paget).

Broken Arrow is another lean movie so I think it deserves a lean review. It has the usual brand of old Hollywood workmanship to it so the craft doesn't draw attention for either the right or wrong reasons. Stewart naturally proves a good centre around which to build the film, while Chandler and Paget give serviceable performances that compensate for some rather distracting redface. I do give films like this credit for at least attempting to offer sympathetic portrayals of Native Americans in a mainstream 1950s film, but even so the resulting film is arguably a bit too thin even when considering its brief running time.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#705 - Munich
Steven Spielberg, 2005

https://oneroomwithaview.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/munich-2005-62-g1.jpg

Based on the true story of a team of international Jewish operatives who join forces in order to assassinate the group of Palestinians responsible for orchestrating a massacre at the Munich Olympics.

I'm still a bit hesitant to call Steven Spielberg one of my favourite directors, though I don't entirely buy into the idea that he is just a really popular hack whose serious films lack depth. Munich is another example of such a film in that it is based on yet another story that could have played its protagonist's struggle as an unambiguous conflict with clearly-defined villains to defeat but instead opts to try for something more complex in the process. The protagonist here is Eric Bana as a Mossad agent who is sent on a secret mission with a handful of Jewish operatives from around the world in order to target the Arabic terrorists responsible for organising the execution of eleven Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympics. While Bana's initial development is pretty straightforward - he is a loving husband and expectant father who is willing to do right by his country - that soon gives way as his decidedly more dedicated handler (Geoffrey Rush) orders him to feign resignation so he can go undercover with the rest of his anti-terrorist cell. Once he's working with his fellow operatives, things gradually become more and more tense as their attempts to take out their targets are fraught with many difficulties.

Munich has just about all the hallmarks of late-period Spielberg as he opts for a quasi-documentarian approach, carefully teasing out snippets showing what happened to the murdered athletes amidst the tale of the men assigned to take revenge. There are a number of other factors in play such as an air of paranoia not unlike those from actual thrillers of the film's era, to say nothing of the ways in which this seemingly justified revenge mission ends up proving not only difficult from a logistical standpoint but also from a moral one as various circumstances (such as a prospective victim's young daughter being a potential victim for a trap) serve to poke holes in the apparent righteousness of our protagonists' squad. Unfortunately, one of those hallmarks ends up being that it's probably a bit too long for its own good - there are moments that could have used a little tightening, especially towards the end. Otherwise, Munich proves a rather solid (if not exactly great) film. It has the same sort of moral ambiguity that has persisted throughout a few of Spielberg's more serious films (I could spot similarities to this year's Bridge of Spies, though that film was ever-so-slightly more cut-and-dried in its approach and content) and, at the very least, it's a serviceable thriller that doesn't get too bogged down in talkative drama for its own good.

3

[Iroquois]

#706 - The 39 Steps
Alfred Hitchcock, 1935

https://weeklyhitch.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/6045.jpg

A Canadian national is framed for murdering a woman and soon becomes embroiled in a plot involving an organisation of spies.

Quite possibly the first great film that Hitchcock ever directed (though I concede that I have not seen all of them), The 39 Steps gave me the same feeling that I got when I first watched Hayao Miyazaki's Laputa: Castle in the Sky, namely that I was watching a cinematic master coat the silver screen with all his raw creativity but with the caveat that many of these same concepts would definitely be refined in the director's later, greater films. The 39 Steps most prominently features one of the key concepts that would come to define Hitchcock's career, namely that of the "wrong man". In this film, the wrong man is Robert Donat's priggish Canadian who goes home with a woman following a shoot-out at a prominent London nightspot only for her to reveal that not only was she responsible for the shooting but that she has knowledge of something known only as "the thirty-nine steps". Donat later wakes up to find that the woman is dead and he's being framed for her murder so he quickly goes on the run and must search for the truth so he can clear his name. A pretty simple concept, but hey, this is 1935, complex film stories hadn't been invented yet.

Hitchcock's mastery comes from the myriad ways in which he would work around the moral codes of the day and The 39 Steps does that considerably well. It even works well enough to sell the occasional off moment, such as Donat attempting to hide from pursuing police officers by suddenly snogging Madeleine Carroll's prim train passenger - the fact that it doesn't work in the slightest only works in the film's favour. The film doesn't feel dependent on music to ratchet up the tension either as many a scene plays out with only the diegetic sounds echoing throughout the audience's ears. It may lapse into screwball comedy once Donat and Carroll end up being handcuffed to one another through circumstance, but that's not enough to sink the tense mood that Hitchcock has already built up through the preceding film. The plot may also be dependent on the kind of plot device that the director would later refer to as a MacGuffin, but that hardly makes a difference as it crafts a very tight story that is over and done with inside of 90 minutes. While Hitchcock undoubtedly made many better films, he still makes a good one here as he uses a simplistic plot to create everything from darkly awkward comedy to persistent tension. A good enough film, but only really worth watching once you've exhausted enough of the man's later classics.

3

[cricket]

I haven't seen Ulzana's Raid yet, but I did see Apache which you referenced, and I agree with you about Lancaster playing a Native American-it took me out of the movie.

Saw Broken Arrow a couple months ago and thought it was decent.

[Iroquois]

#707 - The Last Boy Scout
Tony Scott, 1991

https://jordanandeddie.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/the-last-boy-scout.jpeg

A washed-up detective and a disgraced football player reluctantly team up when the detective's partner and the player's girlfriend are brutally murdered.

In my experience, Tony Scott has proved a difficult director to like. Unlike his brother Ridley, he never had an Alien or Blade Runner to make up for his more mediocre films. The closest I'd ever seen him come to greatness was the 1993 crime caper True Romance; even then, that was arguably because the script was written by an up-and-comer by the name of Quentin Tarantino. Otherwise, Tony's work may have varied as much as Ridley's but none of these films did much for me, whether it was the unintentionally comical machismo of Top Gun, the Gothic camp of The Hunger, or the protracted vengeance of Man On Fire. His 1991 outing The Last Boy Scout didn't inspire that much confidence despite the presence of screenwriting auteur Shane Black, especially since the last Black-scripted film I'd seen had been the promising but ultimately underwhelming The Long Kiss Goodnight. Referring to Black as an auteur seems a little generous considering how much that reputation seems to be based on him reusing certain concepts and gimmicks - I'm honestly surprised that this movie didn't take place during Christmas. Be that as it may, The Last Boy Scout proved quite enjoyable despite all that it had going against it.

The plot is vintage Black as it involves a pair of unlikely partners being forced together to uncover a criminal conspiracy - Bruce Willis plays the former Secret Service agent turned private detective who naturally has problems at home (to the point where the film could be considered a stealth sequel to Die Hard) who starts investigating a case after his partner is killed. It involves a stripper (Halle Berry) who ultimately gets murdered, prompting her former football pro boyfriend (Damon Wayans Jr.) to join forces with Willis in his search for both answers and vengeance. Thus begins a film that packs in everything from explosive action to sharp dialogue during its relatively brief running time. A lot of one's tolerance for this movie will come for one's ability to tolerate Black's too-clever-by-half writing, where obvious Chekhov's guns can be easily identified amidst the barbed one-liners and melodramatic monologues. It still builds a decent enough neo-noir where Willis and Wayans Jr. must try to figure out what's going on while also contending with their difficult interpersonal dynamic and constant threats. Willis is definitely solid here, while any reservations I had about Wayans Jr. are easy enough to forget or ignore as he holds his own against Willis in some lovably ludicrous tough-talking exchanges.

Like just about any journeyman director, Scott is at his best when he's got a good story to work off. Black definitely provides in that regard; his framework may be familiar if you've seen just about any of the other movies he's written, but it definitely provides a consistently entertaining mix of snappy buddy comedy and lurid action scenes. The unlikely pairing of Willis and Wayans Jr. has to carry the film and, though it's hardly the greatest of pairings, the duo do have surprisingly decent chemistry. The film as a whole is not without its weaknesses, though - Scott's bombastic high-concept style of filmmaking means that it's easy to appreciate the more garish aspects of the film but doesn't do so well when it comes to capturing genuinely tragic moments. The early-'90s action aesthetic also leaves something to be desired even though it's clear from the gaudy opening credits that the film isn't interested in taking itself too seriously. The Last Boy Scout isn't a classic by any means but it's a reasonably enjoyable little film. It manages to revel in its silliness without becoming tiresome and offers its fair share of memorable moments as it powers through a narrative that may not be the most original but definitely doesn't hit too many lulls.

3

[cricket]

Nice review, as usual, of The Last Boy Scout. I can't disagree with anything you wrote. I seem to remember some discussion about Crimson Tide a couple months ago, which I'm thinking may have been in this thread. Anyway, I think that is Scott's second best behind True Romance.

[Iroquois]

I haven't seen Crimson Tide, though I did review The Hunt for Red October a while back.

[cricket]

I think you'd like it. Just having a Washington/Hackman combo goes a long way.

[Iroquois]

#708 - Kingdom of Heaven
Ridley Scott, 2005

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/mpc.website.assets/files/content/gallery/201303/f858b9cb-6ba1-45b9-a433-7ee992b98dd0_14b60b00_image.jpg

During the 12th century, a French blacksmith is encouraged to join the Crusaders in fighting to maintain their domination of Jerusalem.

I like how the brothers Scott embody two separate sides of the same filmmaking coin. Though the pair had their dalliances with different genres, Tony leant towards making straightforward action thrillers while Ridley had a tendency towards sweeping historical epics. Though the ambitious nature of the latter would seem to overshadow the basic accessibility of the former, it's not like Ridley's general output is automatically indicative of any inherently great quality. Kingdom of Heaven sees him turn his perfectionist eye to the time of the Crusades, building a story off a widowed blacksmith (Orlando Bloom) as an old crusader (Liam Neeson) claiming to be his father arrives with the intention of recruiting him to fight in the Holy Land. Though Bloom initially refuses, he eventually relents and so begins a journey that takes him from plague-ridden France to war-torn Israel. Having been fascinated by the Crusades when I first learned about them many years ago, I'm surprised that I didn't get around to watching this sooner. Unfortunately, it turns out that I probably could have afforded to put this film off for even longer.

Ridley Scott's tendency to sacrifice a strong story for technical proficiency in his films is once again on display with this film. Knowing that there is a longer but apparently more cohesive Director's Cut out there is liable to affect one's judgment of the original theatrical release, but even without that knowledge Kingdom of Heaven still feels fundamentally weightless underneath its sprawling locations and elaborate set design. The choppy development of the narrative truly sets in once Bloom arrives in Jerusalem and, though the film assembles a number of competent performers to carry it, they aren't enough to save the film's plot from becoming a numbing bore for the most part. Bloom himself is too much of a blank slate who gets a vague crisis-of-faith arc that is enough to get him started on his quest to the Holy Land but that only goes so far as he gets wrapped up in a love triangle involving a princess (Eva Green) and her husband (Marton Csokas). There are a number of battles both great and small that once again see Scott invoking the same mix of alternating editing speeds and shots of considerable scope, but the resulting application just feels empty if only because the story itself is such a dirge. Still, I do kind of want to see how this film's Director's Cut supposedly changes the film for the better, but based on what I've seen in the theatrical version of the film I'm not sure that it can really do much more except possibly inflate an already-bloated (albeit technically decent) period piece.

2

[Iroquois]

#709 - Empire of the Sun
Steven Spielberg, 1987

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FTsCfFpMiZY/TlKGIpV1pYI/AAAAAAAAAlI/7dCDC0TdC1c/s1600/eots_04.jpg

During World War II, a young English boy gets caught up in the middle of the Japanese invasion of China.

Following on from Spielberg's first foray into making Serious Films with 1985's The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun can also be perceived as another step on the man's cinematic journey from light entertainments to prestigious dramas. Based on the autobiographical novel by J.G. Ballard, it tells the tale of a young English boy (Christian Bale) whose life of wealth and privilege is disrupted by the Japanese military invading Shanghai in the lead-up to their involvement in World War II. Bale does his best to survive on his own but eventually circumstances drive him to surrender to Japanese custody and be incarcerated in a prison camp. While an admittedly basic plot, it is enough to sustain a rather lengthy wartime drama that frames the horrors of war through a relatively accessible story of a boy trying to make it through alive and hopefully be reunited with his parents. Thanks to my anachronic progress through Spielberg's filmography, the tale of a young boy being separated from his family and doing whatever he can if it means reconnecting with them did seem a bit familiar since it later served as a similar plot for A.I. Artificial Intelligence. While that particular story was rooted in tragic fatalism underneath its sci-fi fairytale surface, Empire of the Sun is like many a prison film in that it holds out a glimmer of hope underneath its incredibly arduous circumstances.

Spielberg's capacity for creating scenes of wartime carnage and horror is relatively neutered by the film's status as a relatively accessible story about a young boy, but one can still appreciate the scale whether it's in the streets that are crowded with panicked citizens or the post-invasion aftermath where opulent mansions are silent save for the once-overworked servants ransacking them. The bulk of the film is a prisoner-of-war kind of deal as Bale teams up with an amoral American conman (John Malkovich), who proves the kind of difficult father figure that has appeared in many a Spielberg film. Though Bale has naturally made quite the name for himself as an adult, even as a child he brings his signature intensity to a challenging role that could have easily gotten grating but works well in his precocious hands. It is definitely one of those films where other actors drift in and out of the story as necessary, with Malkovich providing the most constant adult presence as a snarky Fagin-like figure whose interest in Bale's well-being is primarily rooted in relying on him to help him with his shamelessly opportunistic scams. Though it's definitely a little on the long side, it does develop quite the emotional core even though it may not break any seriously new ground either in general or for Spielberg himself.

3

[Iroquois]

#710 - Glory
Edward Zwick, 1989

http://sites.psu.edu/sklackmovies/wp-content/uploads/sites/18085/2015/01/gl4.jpg

During the American Civil War, the Union makes the controversial decision to form an entire regiment of African-American soldiers.

It's almost too easy to get bored by your typical Hollywood period drama as they get bogged down in stolid formalism that is only halfway-appreciable because of the superficially astounding technical aspects. As a result, films that actually overcome their somewhat alienating focus on delivering grandstanding mixtures of technique, intelligence, and emotion end up becoming fewer and further between as one's perceptions become sharper. Glory seemed like it was going to be another one of those films that'd prove decent but ultimately hollow. It certainly has a premise that's at once audacious yet also a rather "safe" bet; namely, being based on the true story of an all-black platoon of soldiers serving in the American Civil War. The line between a film being progressive and being patronising is a blurry one, especially when one takes into consideration how the film has to give us a white protagonist in the form of a colonel (Matthew Broderick) who takes charge of the regiment, though this is arguably justified by the film being based on the real-life colonel's letters. Of course, though he is set up as the main viewpoint character, he doesn't exactly become the hero despite his odd moment of allyship where he will take a stand against his subtly racist white comrades.

Instead, what makes Glory great is the ways in which it develops a strong core of black characters in order to examine conflicting perspectives of the Civil War even from within the Union, which is often shown to be the lesser of two evils compared to the barbaric bigotry of the Confederacy. There are three such characters that all embody a sort of power trio in their varying attitudes towards the prospect of serving the North. Denzel Washington proves the obvious stand-out in the role that earned him his first Oscar as the belligerent former slave whose all-encompassing resentment of the white man makes him an antagonistic yet compelling force within the film as he challenges the Union's apparent white-saviour narrative and frequently tries to provoke the other black soldiers into seeing things his way. While such a role could have been a flat caricature designed to prop up such a narrative, Washington is a capable performer who provides enough nuance and skill to make even a character arc as familiar as this one work. At the other end of the spectrum is Andre Braugher as a bespectacled free man and friend of Broderick's whose status as an upper-class intellectual puts him at odds with soldiers like Washington. In the middle is Morgan Freeman as an older soldier who attempts to serve as the admittedly terse voice of reason, functioning as an intermediary between the white superior officers and the black soldiers.

On a technical level, Glory definitely proves a stunning piece of work. Of special note is the Oscar-winning cinematography, which applies an old-school haze to everything from stuffy socialising to free-for-all battles. There's a lot of the usual orange-and-blue balancing (and every time I see a shot where those are the primary colours, I do wonder if it's actually a good shot in its own right or if it's just making simple use of complementary colours) but there's more to it than that. When the film does opt to show a battle unfolding, it ironically does so without any obvious examples of actual glory. A shoot-out between two squadrons of soldiers plays out with seemingly unrealistic fatalism in showing the squadrons taking turns to shoot at each other, but that just says a lot about how fundamentally ridiculous the nature of war is even without the racial element. Even the nominally triumphant and emotional James Horner score works because it's just so incongruous with what's occurring on screen. While it's easy to grow numb to all the different historical dramas that I end up watching because they all kind of bleed together a bit in their themes and aesthetics, Glory deserves attention because it broke me out of that rut and provided the kind of film that is fundamentally not too different from your average historical drama yet manages to rise above thanks to the talent on display both behind and in front of the camera.

4

[Iroquois]

#711 - Joe Kidd
John Sturges, 1972

https://mikestakeonthemovies.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/joe-kidd-2.jpg

A bounty hunter turned criminal is bailed out of jail by a wealthy land baron in order to help out with the hunt for a Mexican revolutionary.

In the same year that Clint Eastwood directed his first Western with the dark morality tale of High Plains Drifter, he also appeared in the far more accessible Joe Kidd. Eastwood plays a fairly typical Eastwood kind of character, here the eponymous outlaw who starts off the film in a small-town jail. After a Mexican revolutionary (John Saxon, who seems somewhat miscast) appears in town to cause havoc at the same time as Eastwood's trial, a land baron (Robert Duvall) and his cronies arrive in town looking to pursue Saxon. To this end, Duvall bails out Eastwood on the basis of his renowned skill as a bounty hunter and tracker, which ostensibly make him a useful ally when it comes to finding Saxon. As is to be expected during an Eastwood film of this era, the man naturally takes umbrage to being ordered around (especially by such presumptuous individuals as Duvall and his men) and instead works to fight against them however he can.

While Joe Kidd does offer some decent revisionist subtext in making it so that the white men represented by Duvall are ultimately more villainous than the Mexicans they pursue, that's hardly enough to sustain such a film. It's peppered with the odd moment of Eastwood being a violent yet honourable bastard who relies on his guile and wits to work around the limitations placed on him by his supposed comrades. However, that odd moment isn't enough to stop this film from feeling like a very straightforward affair that plods along for far too much of its already lean running time. It doesn't lack for talent with Eastwood and Duvall in the leading roles, but they seem a little wasted on a film that seems more than willing to trade on Eastwood's grizzled charisma in lieu of solid storytelling or action. While Joe Kidd isn't necessarily without merit, it's still a far cry from not only classic but also from a simple good time at the movies. There's very little catharsis or cleverness to be found in its somewhat twisted tale of retribution, and while that's not enough to truly break a film it does make liking it a rather difficult proposition.

2

[Iroquois]

#712 - Shrek the Third
Chris Miller, 2007

http://www.sbs.com.au/movies/sites/sbs.com.au.film/files/styles/full/public/images/8/8/8829_shrekthird2-627.jpg?itok=8yL099ri

An ogre looking to avoid the responsibility of becoming king goes on a quest to find a separate heir to the throne.

Oh, the things I'll watch when it's already after 10 p.m. and I decide to fill out my movie-a-day stipulation by picking something that I can have running in the background. That's about the kind of attention that Shrek the Third deserves - assuming it deserves any at all. After having married a princess and earned her initially disapproving parents' blessing, the eponymous ogre (Mike Myers) soon finds himself in line for the throne after the ailing king (John Cleese) passes away. Not willing to deal with the responsibility of becoming king, Shrek decides to look for the only other possible heir to the throne, who is in fact a gawky teenager named Arthur (Justin Timberlake). Meanwhile, the vain Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) from the previous film seeks to reclaim his former glory by uniting a rogues' gallery of classic fairytale villains in hopes of launching his own rebellion and taking the kingdom for himself.

I'll keep this short, but if you're reading this and seriously entertaining thoughts of watching Shrek the Third then you're already more than likely to be familiar with the sort of superficially subversive gross-out antics displayed by the grumpy green giant and his companions in the previous two Shrek films. If you have somehow missed those other two, then there's really very little point in watching this one. Even if you've enjoyed the last two (and, to be fair, I have to an extent, though I'd be hard-pressed to say I seriously like them) this one yields very little in the way of worthwhile returns even by the established standards. You may get the odd chuckle out of its shamelessly immature humour on display but more often than not the simplistic parody on display just doesn't manage to amuse on any level - that, and the animation is pretty average.

1

[honeykid]

I liked the third Shrek film a hell of a lot more than the second. I really liked the first one quite a bit, but I think its charm will have worn thin were I to watch it today.

[MovieMeditation]

I liked the third Shrek film a hell of a lot more than the second. I really liked the first one quite a bit, but I think its charm will have worn thin were I to watch it today.
Whaaaat? How? In my opinion the second is a great extension of the universe created in the first, and though more hectic and crazy than the first, I think it works wonderfully...

But no matter what, I can't for the life of me see how you can enjoy Shrek The Third more? It's easily the worst Shrek film or most definitely second worst.

[honeykid]

I hated the second Shrek film. I barely made it through and was very pleased when it ended. I know they're all fairly tale based movies, but the second one is the most like a fairy tale itself and I hate fairy tales.

[Iroquois]

For the record, my current ratings for Shrek and Shrek 2 are 2.5 and 1.5 respectively. Despite that, I still have a feeling that I'm going to end up watching Shrek Forever After.

[Iroquois]

#713 - Machete Kills
Robert Rodriguez, 2013

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-10-09-machetekills.jpg

A legendary Mexican federale is called upon to stop a madman from launching a missile at Washington, D.C.

Robert Rodriguez has built a career on making films that function as uncomplicated bursts of pure entertainment, drawing on a wide variety of influences and genres while also introducing a distinctive Mexican atmosphere to the proceedings. However, in recent years the charm associated with his particular brand of lurid style-over-substance DIY films has definitely worn off quite a bit and now I just think his best films are merely alright instead of great and even then they are outnumbered by his many bad films. Though there are many examples of what makes Rodriguez films difficult to like despite his obvious passion for film-making, I think the problem with his films can best be summarised by looking at Machete. The concept originated as a fake trailer in Grindhouse, Rodriguez's 2007 collaboration with Quentin Tarantino that was designed to pay homage to old-school cult cinemas. The trailer, which starred perpetual that-guy and Rodriguez regular Danny Trejo as the eponymous mercenary, generated enough interest for Rodriguez to actually create a full-length version of the film. That was fun enough but I don't look back on it with any serious fondness. Even so, when a sequel rolled around I figured that I'd give it a shot anyway.

A major problem with doing these kind of inherently absurd action films is that, when it's time to do a sequel, it's all too easy to just throw whatever you can think of at the wall and see what sticks. While the original Machete had a relatively grounded plot involving corrupt politicians and the plight of illegal aliens, in Machete Kills things get a little too out of hand. It starts off harmlessly enough with Machete being called in by the American president (Charlie Sheen, here credited under his birth name Carlos Estevez) to stop an insane Mexican cartel kingpin (Demián Bichir) from launching a missile at Washington D.C. However, Bichir reveals that the missile's launch is wired to his heart and so, if he dies, then the missile launches. In addition, he sets off a 24-hour countdown on the missile launch anyway, thus forcing Machete to keep him alive while also fending off many murderous enemies on both sides of the law. This is a simple enough plot that's arguably an improvement on the basic revenge narrative of the original film, but it's also cancelled out by the struggle to fill out the plot with, well, anything. It throws in whatever it can to stay interesting, which mainly extends to introducing a number of bizarrely improbable sci-fi elements that are initially tolerable but honestly do smack of desperation.

The bulk of Rodriguez's filmography has often involved a wide collection of performers delighting in being offered the chance to do left-field performances that allow them to viciously chew the scenery and/or perform family-friendly pantomime. To this end, Rodriguez assembles a cast of largely-recognisable faces who would all promise to utilise their considerable ability for comical gain, but most of them don't deliver. Trejo once again plays a gravel-voiced warrior who hides any and all emotional duress behind a stony demeanour, which has made him great for playing villainous bit parts but is stretched a little thin when he is made into a leading man. The rest of the cast doesn't fare much better; Sheen's presence is a one-note joke that doesn't work, especially when there's one scene that capitalises on his worn-out "winning" catchphrase for its punchline. Many of the characters tend to be like this, whether it's Sofia Vergara playing a gleefully homicidal variation on her tempestuous Modern Family character or the many different performers who play a master of disguise known simply as "El Camaleón" (regardless of how implausible the face-changing ends up being). That's without acknowledging dull performances from people like Amber Heard as Machete's beauty-queen government contact or Michelle Rodriguez once again doing her standard tough-gal schtick. The only two performers who really make it work are Bichir (whose turn as a Jekyll-and-Hyde type of character allows him to ruthlessly devour scenery whole while also earning a small degree of sympathy) and Mel Gibson as a clairvoyant scientist turned doomsday cultist (yes, you read that right) who definitely channels his well-publicised lunacy into an appropriate conduit.

The most significant portent of what kind of film Machete Kills is comes when the film starts with a Grindhouse-style fake trailer for a third Machete film, Machete Kills Again...In Space. While it initially serves as an amusing little throwback to the series' origins as a fake trailer, it does ultimately serve as a sign of just how little this film has to offer when it spends its opening minutes trying to sell a third Machete film when the second film hasn't shown you anything to prove that it even deserves its own sequel. While Rodriguez already has a reputation for producing high-octane action and stylish effects on a limited budget, here that reputation gets seriously besmirched by some weak efforts in both departments. Even call-backs to the previous film and other Rodriguez productions (such as From Dusk 'Til Dawn's crotch-gun) do little to adequately compensate for what a dry film this ends up being. Even when you take into account the film's aspirations towards recreating old-school exploitation cinema for a new generation, this barely justifies how weak the final product ends up being. It's enough to bring to mind the execrable Crank: High Voltage, another action sequel that attempted to seriously escalate the intensity seen in its predecessor but which ultimately ended up being an offensively aimless mess of a film. While Machete Kills isn't quite as bad as that, it does tread similar ground and as such it can't seriously be considered a good film even by its fairly unambitious standards. At one point in the film, Trejo's gruff protagonist growls "Machete happens!", which is supposed to sound badass but instead serves as all the summary that this film needs.

1.5

[Iroquois]

#714 - Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream
Stuart Samuels, 2005

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Midnight_Movies-_From_the_Margin_to_the_Mainstream_FilmPoster.jpeg

A documentary chronicling the inception of the "midnight movie" phenomenon that examines some of the most famous examples of midnight movies.

Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream is an admittedly odd choice for a documentary to re-watch because, to be honest, it's an extremely lightweight one. This wouldn't seem obvious considering its focus on the most well-known films of the short-lived "midnight movie" era, which generally traded on their shockingly bizarre content to build cult reputations that have subsisted to this very day. Though the film is ostensibly about the midnight-movie phenomenon in general, it examines said phenomenon by using the bulk of its focus on six of the best examples of such a phenomenon, which appear in mostly-chronological order of release. Midnight Movies begins by covering the original midnight movie, Alejandro Jodorowsky's 1970 acid Western El Topo, then covers a series of other films that all became underground sensations for one reason or another; George Romero's seminal 1968 zombie horror Night of the Living Dead, John Waters' 1972 filth-fest Pink Flamingos, Perry Henzell's 1973 reggae exploitation flick The Harder They Come, Jim Sharman's 1975 schlock-opera The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and David Lynch's 1977 cinematic nightmare Eraserhead.

Structurally, the film is pretty by-the-numbers as it progresses through a largely linear timeline (presumably putting El Topo ahead of Night of the Living Dead because of the former's greater influence on the concept of the midnight movie). The film consists mainly of various talking heads discussing the films and the atmospheres surrounding and influencing them, which prominently includes the film's creators (though Sharman is reduced to stock-footage interviews in favour of interviewing actual Rocky Horror creator Richard O'Brien). It's easy enough to follow and paced well enough despite its obviously episodic construction, though there's not a whole lot of depth to whatever points the various interviewees are making. I've managed to see all six of the featured films and my opinions of them vary quite wildly between beloved classic and boring nonsense, so of course having foreknowledge of these films may definitely affect your ability to care about what's going on. I'd say my least favourite of these films was The Harder They Come, which leads to its segment being pretty easy to overlook. Regardless of your knowledge or lack thereof concerning these films, Midnight Movies is an extremely brief and straightforward documentary that'll definitely depend on your prior knowledge to define its relative worth. I had no problems watching it a second time, but I'm hard-pressed to appreciate it as either an in-depth examination of a short-lived and erratic cinematic movement or even a shallow celebration of said movement. Arguably worth watching once, but beyond that...not really.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#715 - Bad News Bears
Richard Linklater, 2005

http://media.theiapolis.com/d4/hB6/i13CR/k4/l13GC/u1L2/wHQ/2005-bad-news-bears-030.jpg

A burnt-out alcoholic is made to coach a Little League baseball team full of misfits and delinquents.

I have not seen the original Bad News Bears with Walter Matthau, so most of my motivation for watching this was on the basis of it being directed by one of my favourite filmmakers, Richard Linklater. I certainly don't begrudge Linklater for doing paycheck movies from time to time, and School of Rock proved that he might be able to wring some half-decent material out of an otherwise off-putting proposition. Bad News Bears is very much similar to School of Rock in how it focuses on a grown-up ne'er-do-well reluctantly teaching a bunch of kids how to do something - in this case, it's Billy Bob Thornton's alcoholic misanthrope being roped into coaching a Little League team by his lawyer (Marcia Gay Harden) because her underachieving son happens to be on the team. While Thornton and the kids have a mutual lack of respect for one another, they gradually pull themselves together and start to become a force to be reckoned with out on the diamond even as many interpersonal conflicts threaten to boil over and ruin everything.

To be fair, Bad News Bears isn't quite as intolerable as the concept of a family-friendly remake might prove. For starters, it's certainly not that family-friendly as it features a team full of foul-mouthed kids not only fighting with one another but also talking back to their equally belligerent coach, who has no problem letting slip plenty of signs of his own debauchery. There are also signs that Thornton's perpetually-wasted screw-up has a heart underneath his acerbic exterior, especially when he tries to recruit his bratty erstwhile stepdaughter because of her preternatural skills with pitching. Throw in love-to-hate villains such as Greg Kinnear as the clean-cut yet horribly demanding and nepotistic coach of a rival team and you've almost got enough material to carry a film. However, the fun doesn't last long considering the fact that the film is focused on, y'know, baseball and that the amusement generated by raucous banter only lasts so long even in the hands of a dialogue-emphasising director like Linklater. As a result, Bad News Bears is ultimately a pretty unremarkable film that has just enough quality to stop being a contemptible mess but not enough to make it completely watchable. I'm not sure if Linklater has directed anything worse than this, but it wouldn't surprise me if this ended up being his greatest misstep as a director (paycheck be damned).

1.5

[gbgoodies]

The 1976 version of The Bad News Bears is much better than the 2005 version, so you might want to give the original a try.

[Iroquois]

#716 - Frantic
Roman Polanski, 1988

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AdDpGOnMSF0/maxresdefault.jpg

An American doctor and his wife go on a business trip to Paris, but when she gets kidnapped he becomes embroiled in a dangerous conspiracy.

Masters don't become masters without reason, so it would seem a little disingenuous of me to automatically dismiss any film because its director owed perhaps a little too much to the standards of a filmmaker with an unquestionable critical reputation. That being said, Roman Polanski's Frantic owes more than a little debt to the works of Alfred Hitchcock. The plot certainly seems like vintage Hitch as it follows an American doctor (Harrison Ford) arriving in Paris with his wife (Betty Buckley) as part of a business trip. After they check into their hotel room and find that Buckley's got the wrong suitcase, she suddenly goes missing without explanation. Ford's understandably...frantic search for her soon leads him into Paris's seedy underbelly as he gets caught up in a struggle involving a highly-prized MacGuffin and a number of villainous, untrustworthy players who will stop at nothing to get their hands on what's in that suitcase. When the police naturally don't prove effective enough to help him, he takes things into his own hands and is forced to co-operate with a self-centred young woman (Emmanuelle Seigner) who is part of the conspiracy and proves a difficult ally in Ford's search for his wife.

The problem with Frantic is that it just doesn't do too much of note despite the apparent pedigree of its director and star. Granted, there's a certain grittiness to the film as it sends its cocksure protagonist way out of his depth and does go some way to challenge Ford's reputation as a capable hero while giving him some range (the scene late in the film where he makes a phone call to his unassuming kids is a stand-out). The film also tries to provide a good foil for him in the form of Seigner's low-level crook who follows a recognisable arc as she goes from a selfish desire to be paid for her smuggling to genuinely wanting to help Ford out. Unfortunately, the plot is too thin and familiar to truly sustain a film of this length and, while there's a certain interest in seeing how things turn out, the whole thing plods an awful lot for what is supposed to be a high-tension thriller. In trying to update all the classic Hitchcock motifs - the wrong man, the MacGuffin, the unlikely yet heavily charged alliance between a male and female lead, etc. - Polanski seems to unintentionally expose their hollow nature without offering much in the way of modern innovation. Instead, the only difference that the '80s setting really makes to this film is through Ennio Morricone's uncharacteristically bland and dated-sounding background score.

2

[Tugg]

"Frantic" was alright movie. Biggest criticism- it's too slow.

[Iroquois]

#717 - The Cars That Ate Paris
Peter Weir, 1974

https://horrorpediadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/cars-that-ate-paris-the_17155.jpg

After surviving a car crash, a man is stranded in a small Australian town where the citizens have a dangerous scheme involving traveling motorists.

Before going on to direct not only two of the greatest Australian films ever made but also a number of highly-acclaimed Hollywood dramas, Peter Weir made one very weird little film called The Cars That Ate Paris. On the surface, it has all the hallmarks of an exploitation film; it focuses on the eponymous Australian town where the eccentric population deliberately causes car crashes and salvages what they can from the wrecks. The film begins with a pair of brothers being involved in such a crash, but only one of them survives. After he recovers, he is encouraged to stay in town by the locals (especially the mayor, who houses him while he adjusts to the situation) and cannot bring himself to leave due to his own traumatic history when it comes to driving cars. The town itself has its own problem as a gang of young car nuts get into a series of escalating conflicts with the peaceful (albeit still ruthlessly homicidal) citizenry.

While this film does have a seemingly typical exploitation premise comparable to Herschell Gordon Lewis's Two Thousand Maniacs! in its tale of insidious small-town folks ritualistically murdering outsiders, in the hands of Weir it becomes something else. It's definitely not focused on the cheap thrills provided by its potentially violent concept (though it does have its fair few scenes of blood and nastiness, especially during its destructively anarchic climax), instead taking the sort of slow-burning meditative route that has characterised just about every Weir film I've seen. One can easily see this as a warm-up for Picnic at Hanging Rock, which also took a normally sensationalised subject and created a film that was more haunting than shocking. Of course, this does mean that The Cars That Ate Paris sometimes feels a bit too slow and restrained for its own good as it follows one survivor's attempts to either escape from or acclimatise to the town's weirdness. It does indulge its simple exploitation-like premise from time to time, but not enough to make it feel like much more than a rough draft for Weir's more amazing films.

2.5

[honeykid]

I've never been interested in The Cars That Ate Paris, but it sounds like I should give it a look.

I've only seen Frantic twice, I think, but I've enjoyed it both times. though possibly more for Emmanuelle Seigner than anything else, but I remember liking the feel of it. It's a bit odd, but I do seem to prefer people 'doing' Hitchcock a lot more than when Hitchcock does it.

I really like Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream. It's the kind of documentary I watch for fun.

I've not seen Machete Kills, but I didn't care for Machete so I can't see this being one for me. As with the first, I might catch it on tv sometime, watch it, and think, "yeah, I needn't have bothered."

[Iroquois]

#718 - The World's End
Edgar Wright, 2013

http://byt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/The-Worlds-End-Simon-Pegg-Nick-Frost.jpg

A group of friends reunite to recreate the best night of their lives but soon discover that their old hometown has changed.

Ever since I first saw Shaun of the Dead over a decade ago, Edgar Wright has easily become one of my favourite directors. The 2004 zombie parody stood out to young me for many reasons - the taut construction of both written and visual humour, a cast full of excellent comic talents, inventive effects, technical panache, and a great soundtrack. I naturally kept an eye out for everything else he did, especially his collaborations with Simon Pegg. Short-lived geek sitcom Spaced was great, as was their 2007 sophomore feature Hot Fuzz, which sought to affectionately lampoon the action genre in the same way that Shaun had taken on horror. After that, Pegg and Wright struck out in different directions, with the former mainly getting a lot of comic relief roles in hit franchises while the latter created another rapid-fire genre comedy with the Spaced-like geek fantasy of 2010's Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. 2013 saw the duo reunite to complete their so-called "Cornetto trilogy", which had begun with Shaun and continued with Fuzz. By this point, Wright and Pegg's capacity for cleverly constructed gags and reference-heavy humour was threatening to wear a little thin and one could easily worry about diminishing returns as they sought to deliver a third film seemingly out of obligation.

The World's End begins with a grainy montage introducing us to a cocky Goth named Gary King (Simon Pegg) as he retells the story of the best night of his life; on the last day of school in 1990, Gary and his closest friends embark on a legendary pub crawl known as "the Golden Mile", which involves visiting all twelve pubs in their small hometown of Newton Haven and drinking a pint of beer in every single one. Though they don't complete the crawl, Gary still considers it the best night of his life. Fast-forward about twenty years and Gary, now pushing forty and in rehab, gets the bright idea to throw on his high-school duds, reunite his old friends, and finish the Golden Mile once and for all. However, this is complicated by the fact that his friends have all moved on with their lives and have no real interest in reuniting with Gary for the crawl - especially his former best friend Andy (Nick Frost), who has nothing but resentment towards Gary due to an unspecified past incident. The other three - neurotic family man Peter (Eddie Marsan), sharp-tongued romantic Steven (Paddy Considine), and tech-savvy straight-man Oliver (Martin Freeman) - don't exactly hate Gary, but they all have their own baggage that doesn't make them relish the idea of spending time around him. After barging into their places of work one by one and convincing them to join up, Gary drives them all out to Newton Haven and they get started on the crawl, but it doesn't take long before they find out that the town is hiding one very dark secret...

Before continuing on with addressing the quality of the rest of the cast, I think I need to single out a paragraph for Pegg and Frost alone. With the previous two films featuring Pegg as the straight man and Frost as the goofy man-child, the decision to have them swap roles had the potential to fail but it pays off magnificently. Pegg's turn as the manic and self-obsessed burn-out who constantly cracks bad jokes and needles his old friends is liable to alienate audiences right off the bat, but it soon becomes clear how much his cheerfully manipulative behaviour masks a broken man secretly trying to cope with his many flaws, which only becomes clearer and clearer as the film progresses and leads to some genuinely affecting work from the man as the film races towards its climax. Frost, on the other hand, has to deal with the challenge of playing a character that's far removed from the happy-go-lucky fools he played in the other Cornetto films. Fortunately, he's not only able to provide a gloriously contemptuous and sarcastic foil to Pegg's antics but also manages to pull off some serious heavy-lifting in the role, managing to cover a wide array of emotions as he must once again deal with his erstwhile best friend getting him into trouble.

In keeping with its more focused approach to characterisation, The World's End assembles a cast that more than matches up to the bevy of British character actors featured in Hot Fuzz. The rest of the so-called Five Musketeers involve actors who have all made names for themselves as serious actors - like Frost, they all function as straight men towards Pegg but all in very different ways. Freeman may get the least development of them all as the Bluetooth-wearing businessman who constantly censors himself and is embarrassed by some of his friends' fixation on his sister Sam (Rosamund Pike), but he delivers his usual comedic frustration with competence. Marsan also does well as the wealthy but extremely timid man whose monologue about his abusive childhood definitely stands out as a dark moment in a film that's surprisingly full of them and also makes him an interesting counterpart to Pegg. The normally intense Considine still impresses as he channels a lot of dry humour into every scene that Steven is in, whether it's shrugging off Pegg's nonsense or opening up about his unrequited feelings for Sam. Despite Sam coming across as a token female character who exists mainly to serve as a point of conflict between several of the male leads, Pike definitely has enough talent to make the role into something more.

While Shaun of the Dead quite frequently foreshadowed the inevitable appearance of the shuffling ghouls and Hot Fuzz gradually eased into a murder mystery plot, for the first half-hour or so The World's End gives you virtually no hint that it's going to turn into a film about an alien invasion. It instead builds up the six leads not just on their own but also in relation to one another as they meet up and head on the crawl. One could easily see this being a straightforward dramedy that could play out quite well without any science-fiction elements whatsoever, which can be interpreted as either a point in the film's favour or one against it. I personally think it's a credit to the film that it's not only able to organically develop a handful of well-defined protagonists during its first act, but it keeps building on such solid foundations in ways that pay off in manners great and small, especially during the film's emotionally charged third act. The themes regarding nostalgia, immaturity, and individualism also feed into the admittedly familiar design of the aliens, whose easily-destroyed bodies not only resemble action figures but whose collective hive-mind also stands out as the epitome of the supposedly adult conformity that self-proclaimed free man Gary rails against.

Wright's frenetic style of filming has only escalated with each subsequent film he's directed and The World's End seems to mark an apotheosis of his particular style. The claustrophobic zombie horror of Shaun of the Dead, the blockbuster-like carnage of Hot Fuzz, and the colourful comic-book violence of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World all bleed into this film's action sequences, which definitely stand out as some of the best work Wright has ever filmed. Veteran action cinematographer Bill Pope is definitely an unsung talent here - he has worked on all sorts of memorably high-energy productions ranging from The Matrix to Army of Darkness and that energy definitely translates into the action scenes that weave in everything from long takes to relatively slick CGI effects. Despite the speed with which such scenes are shot and cut, they never become disorienting and are very well-choreographed. The fast-paced hand-to-hand fights still keep up the comedy thanks to the gory booze-fuelled slapstick that suggests influences ranging from Jackie Chan to Sam Raimi, which is still kept grounded thanks to the aliens' blue blood making the splatter seem enjoyably cartoonish rather than graphically overdone. Such scenes may be few and far between, but this is definitely a case where quality wins out over quantity.

The depth of the characterisation and execution of the action are all very well and good, but since The World's End is primarily intended to be a comedy, one can question whether or not it delivers. The intricately-woven mix of clever dialogue and well-staged sight gags made Shaun of the Dead into a sleeper hit and Hot Fuzz managed to offer its own variations on certain jokes while providing an even greater scope to its characters and humour. To this end, The World's End does occasionally seem to be better at amusing than eliciting laughter. The character-based interplay definitely has a bittersweet tinge to it thanks to Pegg being deliberately unfunny and the bulk of the humour coming from his friends barely tolerating his desperate attempts to entertain. Be that as it may, there are still plenty of funny moments scattered throughout the film that invoke both verbal and physical humour to strong effect (often involving something as simple as Frost trying to walk through a door or the group trying to figure out what name they should give to their newfound enemies). In keeping with Wright and Pegg's tendency to fill the film with all sorts of clever bits of foreshadowing in terms of both visual detail and dialogue choices, the film also proves quite re-watchable; this marked my seventh viewing of the film and I still get consistent amusement with a good few chuckles out of it.

The general consensus seems to be that The World's End is actually the weakest part of the Cornetto trilogy, but I do wonder if that's because it has to try to match the high expectations set by not only Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz but also by the fact that it's supposed to be an epic conclusion. While I was initially inclined to agree with such an assessment, over time it's grown on me and I might even give it the edge over Hot Fuzz (and I do love Hot Fuzz). The World's End proves a very satisfying conclusion to a trilogy that has been connected not just by doing quintessentially British genre parodies but also by seeing the various characters and conflicts escalate as the protagonists must work towards growing up and bettering themselves one way or the other. This may mean that the film's ending is of debatable quality and logic (regardless of it having one of the most awesome final images of the 21st century), but that doesn't stop the rest of the film feeling extremely solid. It works as a straightforward genre pastiche that just so happens to be funny and also has a great collection of people working on both sides of the camera. It's fun but also has emotional resonance to it, plus the action scenes show Wright at the top of his game. That's without mentioning the mix of Steven Price's appropriately dramatic score and a selection of mostly-retro tunes that reflect Wright's capacity for great marriages of sound and vision - look no further than the film's sublime usage of the intro of the Sisters of Mercy's "This Corrosion".

4.5

[MovieMeditation]

Great review of The World's End, Iro!

I'm not only sad but also kind of mad that this entry gets so much hate. I think it was a great extension of the "Cornetto universe" and a fun new angle that still plays things in vein of the first two.

I do think people's mind were clouded because of the two previous films. I think they forget to just watch this as a random film, therefore missing a lot of details and elements because of constantly comparing the film with the previous ones and always having them in mind throughout... Anyways, for me this is an awesome conclusion to the Cornetto trilogy and a great film in its own Wright (lol, gotta use that if I ever review it myself)

Again, a well-written and thorough review.

[Iroquois]

#719 - Lethal Weapon
Richard Donner, 1987

http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/4/45//lethal_weapon_3.jpg

An ageing detective is forced to team up with a suicidally reckless police officer in order to solve the mystery surrounding a dead woman.

The original Shane Black movie, Lethal Weapon features all the hallmarks that would come to define the man's few but undoubtedly distinctive attempts to update film noir for the sensibilities of an audience hungry for high-concept blockbusters. By these standards, Lethal Weapon certainly delivers as it works off a very tried-and-true formula (that only become more tried and more true in Black's later scripts). There's the familiar odd-couple dynamic that forms between two members of the L.A.P.D. - Danny Glover is the strait-laced family man while Mel Gibson is the widower with his own death-seeking tendencies. In true noir/Black fashion (same thing), what starts off as a seemingly straightforward case for the two to work - namely, that of a coked-up young woman falling to her death in the film's opening minutes - soon points to a much more complex and insidious mystery. To this end, the heroes must not only solve the case but also try to survive the various dangers that come with working their jobs.

Lethal Weapon naturally crackles with just enough clever one-liners and idiosyncratic qualities to make up for its somewhat pedestrian plot. The story at large isn't quite as memorable as individual sequences such as Gibson's Dirty Harry-like attempt at preventing a suicidal citizen from jumping to his death or the scene in which the two leads hit the firing range and do some target practice. Glover and Gibson have reasonably good chemistry together, with the former's avuncular consternation playing off well against the latter's smart-mouthed mania. Blockbuster journeyman Donner does well enough at capturing the various different modes that the film lapses into, whether it's the sharp buddy-comedy or the slowly-escalating tension. The action certainly seems a little lacking compared to other films of the era, but it's definitely got its fair share of memorable moments ranging from desert shoot-outs to muddy fist-fights. The original score composed by both Michael Kamen and Eric Clapton serves to date the film harder than Gibson's thick mullet ever could with its distracting emphasis on saxophone, but given the story's aspirations to neo-noir within its action-movie framework this actually seems to fit the movie. Lethal Weapon doesn't exactly feel like a classic, but it's still fairly entertaining even on a repeat viewing and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it again. That may be damning with faint praise, but that's still better than earning no praise whatsoever.

3

[Iroquois]

#720 - Thunderbolt and Lightfoot
Michael Cimino, 1974

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SCa88nwQzq4/Ti4eKLH-JlI/AAAAAAAAHuk/2Kwuwe6c5GU/s1600/thunderbolt-and-lightfoot.jpg

A former bank robber crosses paths with a young car thief who encourages him to go back to pulling off heists.

Before Michael Cimino hit Oscar gold with visceral Vietnam War melodrama The Deer Hunter, he directed a little film called Thunderbolt and Lightfoot that starred Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges as Thunderbolt and Lightfoot respectively. The former is a veteran thief in hiding who is tracked down by his murderous former partners (George Kennedy and Geoffrey Lewis), while the latter is a reckless small-time crook who starts the film by stealing a used car out of a dealership. They cross paths soon enough and, despite some resistance on Eastwood's part, they gradually warm up to each other. This makes the film into a typical early-'70s road movie for a good chunk of its running time with all the problems that that entails. I don't deny that there are classics in that regard, but Thunderbolt and Lightfoot definitely doesn't feel like one as it indulges a lot of the usual counterculture road movie clichés with virtually none of the charm. The most egregious example of this is an early example where Bridges manages to rope a couple of rather impressionable women into being one-night-stands for both him and Eastwood, with their treatment being a pretty distinct representation of just how poorly female characters tend to fare in movies of this ilk.

It's only once the duo reunite with Eastwood's former partners to pull off another heist that the film gains any significant structure to its plot, but there's nothing terribly exciting about the heist that they do plan to pull off. The tensions between the main quartet and their distinctive personalities ends up being more watchable than the actual heist itself. Eastwood and Bridges naturally fill out the roles of grizzled pro and fresh-faced upstart respectively; meanwhile, Kennedy proves an incredibly belligerent and antagonistic force of nature even after he gives up on trying to kill Eastwood and sides with him. Though Bonnie and Clyde showed how the road movie could deftly be combined with the heist movie, this doesn't translate into success for Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. The whole thing ends up being a slog for the most part that is only really redeemed by Eastwood and Bridges sharing some decent (but not amazing) chemistry, to say nothing of the odd memorable scene (such the entire sequence that involves the duo hitching a ride with a crazed driver, which might just be the best scene in the film because of how left-field it ends up being). One could just as easily see Thunderbolt and Lightfoot as a cynical attempt to cash in on the success (both critical and commercial) of similarly road-based New Hollywood movies - whatever the case, the film certainly doesn't do enough to justify itself to the contrary.

2

[Yoda]

Eh? They already have. That's what the whole thread is. Did you just reply to something you saw at the end of the first post without noticing the rest of the thread?

[Yoda]

Yeah, I have no idea what you're asking there.

The answer to your question is found easily by skimming the thread: he says he'll start "soon," and then he posts shortly after, which means he's started.

The question I ask ("my" question) was whether or not you replied to something without looking at the thread much. Seeing as how I asked you, I'm not sure how you could "miss" your own answer.

[Iroquois]

#721 - The Lobster
Yorgos Lanthimos, 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/film/Cannes-Festival/lobster2-xlarge.jpg

In a dystopian world where single people are forced to form relationships with one another or be turned into animals, a newly-single man arrives at a hotel designed to facilitate such couplings.

It takes a truly well-crafted film to get under my skin and The Lobster is definitely an example of such a film. It skimps over convoluted world-building in order to focus on its very bizarre premise; namely, that people who are not involved in romantic relationships must be forced to acquire them or risk literally losing their humanity. The film introduces us to Colin Farrell's paunchy, bespectacled everyman as he is made to take up residence in a remote countryside hotel after recently becoming single. Once there, he has forty-five days to find a suitable partner so that they can move on with their lives together in the city. The time limit can be extended if the guests at the hotel can go out into the woods and capture the rebellious "loners" who live in the woods. If the guests do not find suitable partners before their time runs out, then they are turned into the animal of their choice and let loose into the wild. Once Farrell is set up inside the hotel, he begins his journey to find a way out of his predicament one way or the another.

I already referred to The Lobster as the darkest comedy of the year (that I've seen, anyway) due to the bitterly amusing undercurrent to such a superficially horrifying concept. There's the hotel staff's cheerfully transparent interactions with their lonely charges (even as they are shown torturing guests for breaking the simplest of rules) or the various disturbing ways in which the increasingly desperate guests try to get out of the inherently sadistic program (which don't even bear mentioning considering their gruesome natures). This much is borne out by the casting, which features a number of actors who have prominent backgrounds in off-kilter comedy such as John C. Reilly, Olivia Colman, and Michael Smiley. Such a choice works to justify the incredibly stilted acting that takes place between the various characters; after all, they are all trying very hard to lie not just to others but to themselves and such a fact only feeds into the hopeless absurdity of the situation. Some of this is arguably done to a fault, as is the case with Rachel Weisz's voice-over narration that is broadly enunciated as it balances ponderous ruminations on the harsh nature of their reality with crudely banal descriptions of sexual fantasies.

The ways in which The Lobster expands on its central metaphor constantly prevent it from growing stale as it proceeds to develop the world and the characters within it. It'd be one thing if it was just the hotel staff forcing such an ostensibly cruel ultimatum onto its hapless guests, but the ways in which the general population appear to embrace the ludicrous codes of courtship even outside the confines of the hotel is strangely plausible. Relationship compatibility in the world of The Lobster seems to be entirely determined by individuals sharing a single common characteristic, with some especially desperate people attempting to fake having the same distinguishing features as others in order to find a mate, thus taking existing romantic ideals and taking them to incredibly absurd levels as characters are incapable of processing any other ways to bond with one another. While it's not exactly a dystopian film without a resistance movement, the film still sets up a group of rebels who are as fanatically committed to their own ideals as the system they oppose and thus aren't exactly preferable for characters who are just looking to live out their lives in peace.

There is considerable strength to the technique on display as Lanthimos blends unflinchingly dull and static camerawork against elaborate technical flourishes that often involve slow-motion to considerable effect. Though the film is arguably a little too slow for its own good at times, the languid pacing is carried off with purpose and is naturally punctuated with the odd scene of violence that can range from darkly humourous to disturbingly harsh and occasionally both at the same time. The soundtrack, which features abrasive application of classical music to emphasise the world's extremely thin veneer of class and dignity, may grate a bit at times but it's definitely used to good effect for the most part. The Lobster may prove extremely alienating in its use of graphic yet effectively restrained depictions of sex and violence, but if you can handle it then you can definitely find something of worth here as it keeps your attention until it ends on just the right note.

4

[Iroquois]

#722 - The Big Store
Charles Reisner, 1941

https://travsd.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/thebigstore.jpg

When the manager of a department store hatches a plot to kill off the store's rightful owners and take over for himself, a trio of detectives are hired to protect the owners and foil his plan.

Long-time followers of the thread will have seen me cover a number of Marx Brothers movies and grow increasingly unimpressed with just about each new one that I encounter. While the scale of each production definitely grew with each film that they did, it was unfortunately cancelled out by the fact that the jokes wore thinner and thinner against a formulaic plot that also got increasingly padded out with musical numbers of extremely debatable quality. The Big Store follows the usual Marx plot involving an attractive young couple fighting back against a villainous executive who plans to take over a lucrative establishment (in this case a department store). Enter the brothers as a detective and his associates who become involved in protecting the couple from harm, but not without causing their fair share of havoc throughout the store.

By this point I'm pretty much numb to the Marx brothers' antics and not even the increased scale of the production can compensate for the ways in which they run through their usual bag of tricks. Granted, there is something to be said for technique involved in the scene where Harpo plays a harp in front of a couple of mirrors only for his reflections to start playing their own tunes, but the climax involves some wire stunts that may not lack for ambition but fail to yield any laughs. Even the musical numbers, which are usually the weakest part of your average Marx brothers movie, somehow come across as better because the rest of the film is so incredibly weak. I don't recommend The Big Store - chances are that if you're thinking of watching this then you're probably intending to watch as many Marx brothers movies as possible anyway. You might get more out of it than I do, but that really wouldn't be too hard.

1

[Iroquois]

#723 - The King of Kong
Seth Gordon, 2007

http://movieboozer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/kingofkong-main-review.jpg

A documentary based around the world of competitive video gaming, specifically focusing on one man's attempt to break the world record for the highest score on Donkey Kong.

Though it is a documentary, The King of Kong works around the loose structure of your typical underdog sports movie. The sport in question is actually video gaming - specifically, retro gaming. Due to many of these titles being created in the days where video games were primarily accessed by inserting quarters into arcade machines, it stands to reason that the games in question were designed to be difficult enough so as to guarantee that punters would put in coin after coin in order to win. As a result, there is an entire culture based around attaining high scores on such incredibly challenging titles as Centipede, Pac-Man, and Frogger. Of course, the main focus is on Donkey Kong, the 1981 platformer that first introduced the world to gaming's most iconic character, Mario the plumber, as he climbed building after building in order to rescue his girlfriend from the eponymous ape. While there are many individuals featured in this film, the film is driven by the conflict between two men; Billy Mitchell and Steve Wiebe. As the film begins, Mitchell is a small businessman with decades of experience as a pro gamer who holds the world record for the high score on Donkey Kong. The film truly starts when Wiebe, an engineer turned science teacher, works towards achieving a new high score on Donkey Kong in his spare time. When he tapes himself recording a high score that beats Mitchell's, this causes quite the stir and naturally attracts Mitchell's attention...

While there are the odd moments that feel staged (such as the fact that there's a camera crew recording both sides of a phone call between Mitchell and another person observing Wiebe's record-breaking), that hardly seems to matter as the film tells a familiar but fascinating story in capturing the rivalry that unfolds between Mitchell and Wiebe. Wiebe comes across as a fairly likeable underdog for the most part but his focus on achieving his goal isn't totally idealised - the most obvious example of his delving into obsession would definitely be his original high-score tape where his young son can be heard loudly begging him to stop playing the game in order to pay attention to him. Regardless of Wiebe's flaws, it's pretty impressive how Mitchell acts out his role as the film's nominal antagonist by pulling every trick in the book in order to defeat (or, failing that, discredit) Wiebe so that he can maintain his long-standing record. Wiebe is then put under greater and greater trials in order to prove himself against not just Mitchell but also the various authorities (who do want to side with him but are bound by the rules of the game), building quite the underdog narrative in the process. The overarching attempt to add a narrative structure to every event in the film doesn't feel as forced as you would think and the film's short running time means there's virtually no padding to the proceedings.

When The King of Kong isn't directly focusing on Wiebe's quest to become the Donkey Kong world champion, it does a pretty good job of depicting this rather peculiar competitive sub-culture. Many different elements of the film's world include an arcade specifically reserved for people to set world-record high-scores on or one man's obsession with encountering a Donkey Kong Easter egg known as a kill-screen (to say nothing of the octogenarian woman who's looking to maintain her own record on Q*bert). Just because it's dealing in such a frivolous subject doesn't mean that the film and the people in it don't take themselves seriously. Players will discuss the intricate systems of pattern-recognition that they must observe and memorise in order to make progress through these seemingly simple games, and that's without observing how part of Mitchell's attack on Wiebe is based in connecting his improbable success to a secret plot by one of Mitchell's long-time rivals. The film also knows how to play moments for the right levels of drama, utilising classical music and popular music to accentuate each moment properly (even if it does fall prey to inspirational clichés with tracks like "You're the Best" or "Eye of the Tiger"). As a result, The King of Kong manages to be a quick but substantial documentary that does entertain through its collection of oddballs and relatively niche subject matter, but that doesn't prevent it from having emotional nuance as we follow Wiebe through the highs and lows of his journey. Even if you don't care about video games, you're liable to find something of worth on a cinematic level.

4

[cricket]

The King of Kong sounds like a must see for the documentary countdown, nice and short too I see.

[honeykid]

King Of Kong is one of the documentaries I put on the list for you, cricket. :) Definitely worth a look before you submit your list.

[Iroquois]

#724 - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
William Shatner, 1989

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/climb%20a%20rock.jpg

The crew of the Enterprise are called in to resolve a hostage situation but are instead coerced into helping a religious zealot search for God.

I'm definitely amused by the notion that the long-running Star Trek cinematic franchise has a curse of sorts that results in each odd-numbered installment being substantially weaker than their even-numbered counterparts (though this arguably went out the window with Nemesis, the tenth film in the franchise and also generally considered one of the worst). This hasn't automatically made the odd films unquestionably terrible, though; original film The Motion Picture had enough technical and musical quality to make it watchable, while The Search for Spock wrought a decent enough film out of a storyline that was intended to undo one of science fiction's greatest tragedies. The films involving the cast of The Next Generation didn't fare so well - cross-over Generations was an ultimately middling attempt at passing the torch, while Insurrection felt a bit too much like an episode of the show that was unnecessarily blown out to movie length. (Never mind the reboot.) Fifth entry The Final Frontier had managed to earn an especially unfavourable reputation even by the notoriously haphazard standards of the franchise, but seeing as it was the only Trek film I hadn't yet seen, I figured I would still have to watch it.

The Final Frontier doesn't start too promisingly. After a brief prologue that introduces the film's chief antagonist, a Vulcan zealot named Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill), the film launches into a prolonged sequence where the main cast members are spending their shore leave camping in Yellowstone National Park, complete with campfire singalongs and hover boots. Of course, their shore leave doesn't last long before the Enterprise is called in to deal with a hostage crisis that is being orchestrated by Sybok, which also happens to draw the attention of a glory-hound Klingon captain. To go into further detail would arguably spoil the plot and the various reveals (even though I knew them already), but such details aren't especially relevant in the grand scheme of things since it ends up being a plot that Star Trek has covered before and since. Of course, there's nothing wrong with doing variations on a theme, and if nothing else The Final Frontier provides enough of a variation to partly justify its existence. Sybok proves complicated enough as his quixotic quest to find God (or at least the Vulcan equivalent) is driven by such a tangibly sincere belief that he is able to magically manipulate others into helping him as a result.

With the notoriously over-dramatic William Shatner taking over directorial duties for this installment, one could very easily expect the film as a whole to suffer. Granted, the film does have its questionable moments - the most notable example of such involves a considerably aged Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) carrying out a seductive song-and-dance routine in order to lure some enemies into a trap - but I daresay that the film's good moments manage to outweigh its bad ones. There's a memorably potent sequence where McCoy (DeForest Kelley) is made to confront his darkest secret, plus Spock (Leonard Nimoy) must also deal with his own preexisting connection to Sybok. In this context Kirk (Shatner) doesn't really have too much of an arc, especially when compared to the last few films - instead, his own concerns with facing his mortality (especially how he insists that he will die alone) and his skepticism about Sybok's unwavering faith in the existence of God can't help but feel like diminishing returns even as it attempts to do something original. The plot also feels a bit listless and stretched-out even as it is peppered with action sequences whose ambition is often beyond their reach.

While there's plenty here to suggest that The Final Frontier earns its reputation as one of the worst Star Trek films (and probably the worst out of the ones featuring Kirk and the original crew), I honestly found myself enjoying it a lot more than I would have thought. It builds off an incredibly familiar Trek plot while also failing to reach its true potential, but it doesn't make a mess of things despite some weak humour and special effects work. If anything, it does yield a handful of strong moments that rise above the rest of this admittedly mediocre film. While much of the interplay between characters tends to be ridiculous for one reason or another, there are still good instances of everything ranging from sarcastic camaraderie to heartfelt catharsis. Add in an appropriately versatile score by veteran composer Jerry Goldsmith and you have a film that definitely won't be a contender for the best Trek film but still proves surprisingly decent despite its many flaws.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#725 - High Plains Drifter
Clint Eastwood, 1973

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Ys-fFs0sXVk/TXCZwJ9Pk2I/AAAAAAAAAqY/jUWf9pOTGgI/s1600/highplainsdrifter021.png

A nameless drifter arrives in a small town and is hired by the townspeople to defend them from a trio of bloodthirsty outlaws.

High Plains Drifter marks Clint Eastwood's second film as director and his first take on the Western, so naturally it serves as a deconstruction on par with other Westerns of the era. Much like the iconic roles he played in Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy, Eastwood's protagonist is a nameless gunslinger who rides into a small frontier town; however, it's clear from the opening minutes that he's not even halfway heroic. Whether it's goading the local undesirables into attempting to kill him or even going so far as to rape the town prostitute (and then compound that by having her start to enjoy the act halfway through, which opens up a serious can of worms), it's clear that this is going to be one very unpleasant take on your typical Western narrative. Even the familiar-sounding plot about Eastwood being hired to help the townspeople defend themselves against a gang of recently-released bandits looking to take their revenge on the town is complicated in many notable ways. Leaving aside the incredibly murky sense of morality that Eastwood's character embodies, there's also the fact that the bulk of the townsfolk are extremely unsympathetic cowards; this much is borne out by their willingness to give Eastwood the run of the town simply for the sake of their own safety, which definitely comes back to bite them when he decides to milk that promise for all that it's worth.

Though it's arguably not quite as nuanced as it wants to be, High Plains Drifter proves a reasonably strong attempt at deconstructing the Western. While much of the film is as visceral as you'd expect from Eastwood, it does show some acid-like influences as it depicts dream-like flashbacks to a brutal whipping complete with eerie strings, to say nothing of the ways in which Eastwood's control of the town extends to surreal decisions such as appointing a little person to be the town's new sheriff or having every building in town be coated in red paint. It gets to the point where the actual outlaws who serve as the film's nominal villains become secondary to the points that the film attempts to make about the fickle morality of the townspeople, especially when it comes to pacing out the revelation of the town's dark secret. Such left-field revisionism is reflected on a technical level as the film uses some fairly disjointed camerawork and editing to effectively garnish Eastwood's usual levels of professionalism. While Eastwood would definitely go on to make better Westerns that mixed subversive nuance with classical technique, High Plains Drifter proves a reasonably strong way for him to begin, even if some parts are definitely up for debate.

3.5

[Iroquois]

#726 - Into the Wild
Sean Penn, 2007

http://i2.listal.com/image/2927330/600full-into-the-wild-screenshot.jpg

Based on the true story of Christopher McCandless, a young college graduate who gives away his worldly possessions in order to travel through the American wilderness.

Sometimes I wonder what difference knowing the true story behind a biopic makes to the film in question. Knowing how the story of the individuals involved is likely to conclude isn't automatically enough to ruin a film, but it can definitely put a damper on the proceedings. Into the Wild is based on the true story of would-be adventurer Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch), a college graduate and son of an affluent family. Inspired by reading books by the likes of Henry David Thoreau and Jack London, McCandless opts to abandon the career path set out for him, sign away his life savings to charity, and set out on a journey along the open road with the goal of eventually making it to Alaska. The film begins with him taking up residence in an abandoned bus somewhere in the Alaskan wilderness before cutting back and forth to different points in his journey, ranging from his idealistic beginnings through to the various adventures (and misadventures) he has on the road.

It's pretty much a given that in order for a story to work, an audience has to care about what happens to its characters; this much should apply regardless of whether or not a character is supposed to be sympathetic. Given the context surrounding the film's actual events, Into the Wild seems to be forced to provide a sympathetic portrayal of McCandless and his desire to strike out on his own. This much is borne out by the incredibly simplistic ways in which the film sets up characters that serve as antagonists to McCandless. The most immediate examples are his upstanding parents who supposedly want what's best for their son yet are shown to be incredibly flawed hypocrites underneath their picture-perfect exteriors (especially William Hurt as his verbally abusive father). In addition, McCandless tends to go up against other difficult authority figures that range from obstructively bureaucratic wildlife rangers to violently strict train engineers. While I can understand the reasons why the film might want to portray McCandless as sympathetic, I question just how well such a decision actually works on a cinematic level. The film seems to be guiding viewers towards siding with McCandless's free-spirited intentions, but it's just as possible for a viewer to be alienated by the sheer foolishness of what he's attempting; as a result, his eagerness can come across as irritating more so than infectious. The same goes for his high-minded romanticising of both nature and the road, even if that does gradually get deconstructed as the film moves towards its conclusion.

The reason I bring up the issue of audience sympathy in regards to McCandless's exploits is that your attitude towards his actions will definitely inform whether or not you can tolerate Into the Wild as a whole. The film favours a loosely episodic plot structure rather than a recognisably straightforward narrative. The inherent problem with building a film around clearly-defined segments rather than a continuous narrative is that the film's quality can vary wildly from segment to segment, which can easily result in a whole of inconsistent worth. This unfortunately happens to Into the Wild, with the bulk of the film feeling like a serious endurance test. I'm generally okay with films being slow and long if that measured approach actually means something in either the short or long run, but I never got that feeling with Into the Wild. When McCandless isn't wandering around on his own, he's having encounters with other travelers on the road of life. These people tend to be played by recognisable faces such as Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn, and Hal Holbrook. For the most part, they don't yield especially interesting foils to McCandless - Keener functions as little more than an understanding adult whose implied back-story feeds into her becoming something of a surrogate mother to McCandless, while Vaughn makes an agreeable employer whose seemingly settled lifestyle is lent some semblance of roguishness by his criminal dealings. Holbrook is far and away the stand-out as a lonely old craftsman whose tragic past and earthy countenance feel compellingly sincere in a way that the rest of the film, earnest though it may be, struggles to match across the rest of its running time.

Despite its apparent attempt to provide a genuine tribute to Christopher McCandless's ultimately tragic journey of impassioned self-discovery, Into the Wild still ends up feeling like a very love-or-hate film. It collects a variety of recognisable actors to fill out various roles, but beyond Hirsch's notable physical transformation and Holbrook's bittersweet supporting role these actors get very little of worth to do. On a technical level, Penn's blending of natural scenery with elliptical storytelling is liable to conjure associations with erstwhile Penn collaborator Terrence Malick, but the end product never manages to stand out in its own right. Considering how McCandless's wonder at the marvels of nature is a large part of what leads him to pursue a life on the road in the first place, the film's inability to capture the scenery in a remotely impressive manner is either a blatant failure to do right by its protagonist or a clever subversion that still ends up making the film look boring regardless of its intent. The same goes for the bland acoustic score (complete with Eddie Vedder's vocalising, no less) that also fails to leave much of a positive impression. Though Into the Wild has a somewhat promising outline and Holbrook's handful of scenes are uniformly good, the end result still ends up being an extremely tedious affair that lacks the visual splendour needed to adequately compensate for its choppy narrative and largely empty characterisation.

1.5

[honeykid]

There is literally nothing about that film that makes me think I'd enjoy it even slightly. Reading your review has only reinforced that feeling. Especially as the main protagonist sounds awfully like Timothy from Grizzly Man, who I found very annoying.

[Yoda]

I felt the same way initially; I assumed it would be a silly, hippie-ish romanticization of nature that railed against attachments, relationships, and society at large. I was pleasantly surprised; it was just a portrait of a troubled young man. I really liked Grizzly Man (Treadwell was grating, but the whole thing was too fascinating for that to bother me), however. If your main problem with that was simply having to listen to someone you found annoying, though, you may not mind Into the Wild, since it's a reenactment.

Anyway, really thought I'd hate it, watched it anyway, thought it was pretty good. 3, maybe 3.5. Largely because I felt--a bit unlike Iro, I suppose--that it wasn't really condoning his choices.

[MovieMeditation]

I disliked Into the Wild at first watch but kind of loved it on a second watch.

[honeykid]

If your main problem with that was simply having to listen to someone you found annoying, though, you may not mind Into the Wild, since it's a reenactment.
You could be right. However, that it's a re-enactment is what makes me think I'll hate it/him all the more. :D

[mark f]

What the hell...
http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/421048-into-the-wild.html

[Iroquois]

There is literally nothing about that film that makes me think I'd enjoy it even slightly. Reading your review has only reinforced that feeling. Especially as the main protagonist sounds awfully like Timothy from Grizzly Man, who I found very annoying.

The thing is that I actually liked Grizzly Man, but that was a decidedly less ambiguous film than Into the Wild since you knew from the outset that Treadwell's plan was incredibly misguided (yet still tragic) and every other person in the film agreed with this consensus. Into the Wild tries to be more impartial in its depiction of McCandless but I don't think it succeeds in that regard.

I felt the same way initially; I assumed it would be a silly, hippie-ish romanticization of nature that railed against attachments, relationships, and society at large. I was pleasantly surprised; it was just a portrait of a troubled young man. I really liked Grizzly Man (Treadwell was grating, but the whole thing was too fascinating for that to bother me), however. If your main problem with that was simply having to listen to someone you found annoying, though, you may not mind Into the Wild, since it's a reenactment.

Anyway, really thought I'd hate it, watched it anyway, thought it was pretty good. 3, maybe 3.5. Largely because I felt--a bit unlike Iro, I suppose--that it wasn't really condoning his choices.

Bringing up the concept of hippie-ish romanticising is interesting because Into the Wild does invite comparisons to the original hippie road trip movies like Easy Rider, which also featured a protagonist setting out on a cross-country journey meeting all sorts of unusual characters but choosing to ignore them all in favour of pursuing an ultimately meaningless goal before meeting a tragic end. Into the Wild never did much to differentiate itself significantly from this (apart from being afforded a foregone conclusion due to its true story). Also, it is pretty obvious by the time the film wraps up that it's not meant to be condoning McCandless's choices (though spending half an hour watching a guy slowly starve to death and lapse into delirium will do that), but it almost seems like an after-thought compared to the rest of the film, even though there was plenty to indicate that other such alternative-lifestyle types weren't exactly living much better because of their decisions to live apart from society. Such scenes still aren't particularly engaging and the film's comparatively lengthy running time just serves to make any highlights feel like they're spaced far too far apart for the film's good.

Also, I doubt that this being a re-enactment is likely to make this a more agreeable proposition than Grizzly Man. Annoyance is annoyance regardless of truth.

What the hell...
http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/421048-into-the-wild.html

"What the hell", indeed.

[Iroquois]

#727 - Starred Up
David Mackenzie, 2013

https://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Starred-Up.jpg

A violent young man is transferred to a new prison and must try to survive not just the brutal living conditions but also confront his personal demons.

Starred Up is a grimy depiction of the harsh living inside a British prison and offers a degree of insight into the mentalities behind both the inmates and the staff, which is definitely strong enough to make it above average but not strong enough to make it much better than that. It assembles a decent enough collection of leads, with young up-and-comer Jack O'Connell playing the "starred up" (read: transferred from juvenile detention to adult prison after coming of age) youth at the heart of the film. His attempts to treat the prison as being no different from the facility he left behind soon land him in trouble not just with the authorities and fellow inmates but also with his father (Ben Mendehlson), who is also an inmate and has enough connections to keep O'Connell from getting in over his head. While most of the staff are liable to treat the hot-headed O'Connell as too much of a danger to be kept within the prison's general population, he attracts the attention of an idealistic therapist (Rupert Friend) who seeks to make a difference to the inmates through group sessions.

The film is a decent one that weaves a compelling enough narrative around its well-played characters, though it arguably runs a little long for its own good. The performances are notable - O'Connell has built a good chunk of his career by playing arrogant toughs, with this role arguably making the best of his tendency to be typecast as such. Mendehlson demonstrates the same sort of crooked intensity that made him so fascinating to watch in Australian crime drama Animal Kingdom, while Friend does well enough at playing the hapless therapist whose desire to make change is challenged by just about everyone else, whether it's by O'Connell and his fellow inmates or by the restrictive prison staff (represented by Sam Spruell's sour-faced deputy governor) who are more concerned with disciplining inmates than rehabilitating them. The film is often gritty in a way that recalls Alan Clarke's notoriously bleak 1970s borstal drama Scum with its minimal music and verité camerawork, though the film's tendency to invite comparisons to existing prison dramas rather than stand out on its own is a bit of a problem. It's got a decent enough plot and the acting is solid, but there's little more to it than that.

3

[Iroquois]

#728 - Locke
Steven Wright, 2013

https://garethrhodes.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/locke2900x506.jpg

A construction worker goes on a road trip to attend the birth of his illegitimate child and must field phone calls from his family and business associates in the process.

Being the directorial debut of screenwriter Steven Knight, Locke is a minimalist film that is definitely dependent on its script above all else. Tom Hardy plays the eponymous character, a family man and reputable construction worker who is about to embark on the biggest project of his career. Instead of going home to watch the football with his family, Locke instead starts driving to London. He soon reveals the reason why; several months previously, he had a drunken one-night-stand with a lonely colleague that resulted in her becoming pregnant. Now that she's gone into premature labour, he intends to drive to the hospital in order to be there for her as she has the baby. Naturally, this decision throws both his work life and home life into chaos as this news not only shocks his wife but his sudden decision to make such a long trip definitely interferes with his work commitments the following day. As a result, Locke becomes a virtual one-man play as it consists of Hardy driving non-stop and fielding dozens of phone calls about his many problems over the course of the film's extremely lean running time.

Hardy has already demonstrated how well he can carry a film on his lonesome with his break-out performance in prison drama Bronson; his ability to carry a film is definitely pushed to the limit as he is the only person who appears on-screen in the whole film. While Locke's clipped Welsh accent can definitely be added to Hardy's growing collection of questionable vocal affectations, it does little to distract from the tranquil fury that underlines almost every conversation he does have, whether it's calmly discussing the finer details of pouring concrete or delivering angry soliloquies targeted at his long-absent father. Though he spends much of the film trying to talk in an incredibly controlled manner, this does nothing to make his infrequent outbursts less effective. The collection of actors required to deliver vocal performances over the phone includes some familiar names, most notably Andrew Scott as Locke's alcoholic subordinate and Olivia Colman as the expectant mother who mistakes Locke's stubbornly honourable intentions for genuine romantic attachment. Though none of them are ever glimpsed on-screen, they play off well against Hardy in a series of conversations that are by turns naturalistic and artificial (though the alternating is not always by design).

Locke definitely works well enough as a character study and Hardy carries it off well, conveying all sorts of complicated emotions even as he alternates embraces or fights his various fates. The writing does occasionally get a little repetitive and contains some clunky lines - at one point Colman's character jokingly references Waiting for Godot, drawing a bit too much attention to the film's play-like minimalism. Even so, it's still a reasonably compelling little film that starts off with a number of shocking developments that will genuinely leave you wondering not just how Hardy will react but also how the film will fill out its running time. It's decent on a technical level, taking a confined yet constantly mobile setting and depicting it with just enough visual flair to not look dull but also not distract from the story proper. The same goes for the music, which is barely perceptible as it ebbs in the background and underscores the drama without drawing attention to itself. I'd be hard-pressed to say that the result is automatically a classic, but it's definitely an interesting enough watch that doesn't outstay its welcome.

3

[Iroquois]

#729 - Ben-Hur
William Wyler, 1959

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02221/BenHur_2221984b.jpg

At the height of the Roman empire, the prince of the occupied region of Judea is made to endure many hardships following his rebellion against the Roman occupancy.

Ben-Hur is arguably the prime example of classic Hollywood at its most epic; almost sixty years later, it's still got plenty of marvellous quality to it. Of course, if there's one problem that threatens to undermine even the greatest of cinematic epics, it's that the plot and characterisation might just fail to live up to the awe-inspiring production value on display. After going through a prologue that details the birth of Jesus, the film skips ahead to a few decades later and shows Judean prince Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) reuniting with his childhood friend Messala (Stephen Boyd), a Roman citizen who has just become a tribune. Of course, their friendliness is quickly worn down as their ideological differences are challenged by a series of unfortunate events. As a result, it's not too long before Ben-Hur is thrown into slavery, but his drive to seek revenge on Messala and reunite with his imprisoned family members grants him the strength to survive the most trying of circumstances.

On a technical level, Ben-Hur is quite the masterpiece with its deservedly award-winning art direction that shows in every aspect from the largest of sets to the least noticeable costumes, all of which are shot through with striking Technicolor cinematography. It's a shame that the film doesn't quite manage to provide a memorably definitive score to accompany the proceedings, though it's not noticeably bad so much as the least of a bunch of amazing qualities. The craftsmanship involved is most definitely on display during the elaborate action set-pieces - while one scene involving ship-to-ship combat is remarkable in its balance of colour and clever pacing, I really am amazed at the film's famous chariot race. It's one of those scenes that is hyped to the point where the high expectations threaten to work against it, but I was stunned at how well it delivered on its fearsome reputation. The fact that the film keeps going after it's over is virtually a formality, though the remainder doesn't become a lifeless dirge either. The story threatens to be a little too straightforward for its own good, but the acting is appropriately out-sized to fit the scale of the production. Heston's steely-eyed grand-standing works wonders in this context as he covers a wide range of melodramatic emotions ranging from righteous indignation to wordless awe, while other performers follow suit to debatable effect; Boyd's constantly-shifting interplay with Heston is a highlight, but I'm not sure what's going on with Hugh Griffith's boisterous brownface sheik. At least the seemingly ancillary romantic sub-plot with Haya Harareet's slave doesn't ring hollow.

While I can definitely respect the sheer scale of Ben-Hur, I'm still not entirely sold on whether or not I genuinely enjoyed it. The labourious nature of the production shows in just about every frame and, while I'm not entirely sure it really needed to be three-and-a-half hours in length, it at least manages to avoid descending into pure tedium. The film's infrequent references to Jesus, ranging from the opening sequence through to his own path intertwining with Ben-Hur's at several plot-relevant junctures, could have easily felt overdone and unnecessary yet they never do, and the ways in which his presence feeds into the film's main narrative never feel as forced or as cheesy as you might think. Even so, I definitely think that this has more on offer than the last couple of sword-and-sandal films I've seen and am willing to think that it's got room to grow on me. If nothing else, that chariot race definitely deserves to be seen by anyone with even the slightest interest in cinema.

3.5

[skizzerflake]

I've long harbored a liking for anything about the Roman empire (5 years of Latin in school will do that to you) and Ben Hur gives you more visual fun, spectacle and running time than just about anything else set in that time and place until Gladiator came along. What I do find amusing, however, is it's heavily Protestant view of that time. The idea that Judah Ben Hur, a first century middle eastern Jew would have looked like Charlton Heston is amusing enough, but his whole family looked that way. After the ship wreck that changed Judah's fate, of course, we see him just jumping right into Roman high society after his adoption. Romans were really big on lineage and that would not work well either. His miraculous conversion at the end, of course, seems to be one of those plot devices intended to make the story comfortable for a nice, well behaved, protestant, post-bellum audience (Lew Wallace was a retired civil war general)...a good excuse to indulge all that Roman decadence that led up to Judah's conversion in the prudish Victorian era. Being able to satisfy that audience in print made the movie versions a no-brainer answer to Hollywood excess....sanctity AND spectacle, sin, paganism and Judaism culminating in Jesus.

Yeah, I love that movie too....it's on my blue-ray shelf, but It really is somewhat strange.

[honeykid]

Ben-Bore.

[cricket]

Ben-Bore.

I'll be watching it in the next couple months and that's what I'm afraid of.

[Iroquois]

#730 - Warrior
Gavin O'Connor, 2011

http://images.indianexpress.com/2014/03/warrior-tom-hardy.jpg

A pair of estranged brothers - one a schoolteacher with debts to pay, the other a former Olympic hopeful with a mysterious past - unwittingly enter the same mixed martial-arts competition.

Though I've liked my fair share of sports movies in the past, I generally find each new one I watch to be a gamble regardless of how much acclaim it has earned. I could easily put this down to my general lack of interest in sports, but I still figure that if a film is really that good then it'll win me over in spite of my default state of disinterest. Even by my standards, Warrior seemed an unlikely sell - like several other films I've covered in this thread, my main motivation for watching it came from its earning a rather secure position in the IMDb Top 250. I've mentioned before how I don't automatically consider a film's placement on that particular chart to be an immediate indication of quality or enjoyment, but I have to admit that it seems like an unlikely contender. It works off an idea that is at once so simple and yet so oddly ingenious - namely, Warrior is focused around not one but two separate underdog stories. Not only that, but these underdogs are estranged brothers who both learned how to be formidable wrestlers under their abusive alcoholic father (Nick Nolte). As the film opens, one of the brothers (Tom Hardy) has suddenly shown up on Nolte's doorstep demanding that Nolte start training him again - it is around this time that he also joins a gym with the intention of getting into professional mixed martial-arts. Meanwhile, the other brother (Joel Edgerton) is leading a normal suburban life as a husband, father, and schoolteacher - however, when financial problems threaten him with foreclosure, he also starts to trade on his experience with fighting to earn money in MMA fights...

Another problem I tend to have with sports movies is how they often struggle to balance the quality of scenes involving the sport with scenes involving everything else, leading to one or both factors to suffer as a result. What really surprised me about Warrior above all else was how well it did at finding that balance. I think it might have something to do with fighting-based sports lending themselves to cinema a lot easier than many other sports, and having the sport in question be MMA certainly adds a tactile new dimension to things. There's very little concession to grandiose style, instead capturing any and all fighting in quick, rapid bursts. It keeps things equally low-key when it comes to depicting the interpersonal conflicts. Edgerton's own narrative is extremely familiar; concerned but supportive spouse (Jennifer Morrison), motivated by financial problems, difficulty with his day job, the overwhelming odds against his over-the-hill never was...the list goes on. At least Edgerton and Morrison are capable enough performers to properly handle some of the more clichéd developments. It also helps to provide a backbone for the film as it attempts something more intriguing with Hardy's side of the story, which delves into his complex relationship with Nolte, his mysterious motivations, and his machine-like focus on beating every opponent as quickly as possible without taking any apparent rejoicing in his increasingly significant victories. Nolte himself makes the most of his own archetypal role as the haggard mentor with a dark past who is torn between wanting to be a better person and being an effective mentor for the extremely resentful Hardy.

Warrior doesn't reinvent the wheel at all but it still proves a surprisingly watchable film. It takes a while to gather some momentum but once it gets rolling it's a constantly engaging piece of work. The film knows enough about the ins and outs of your typical underdog sports movies to know how to offer an interesting variation on it. The stock narrative involving Edgerton is lent extra nuance by the one involving Hardy, with both plots not quite being enough to sustain a single film on their own but together form a solid piece of work. It's definitely carried by the strength of both its leads - Edgerton is serviceable enough, but Hardy provides yet another distinctive performance as an extremely complicated individual whose depth extends far beyond the film's storyline. They don't often have moments together, but when they do they play off each other well. Between the solid (if none too distinctive) characterisation and the fight scenes that are rapid-fire without being incoherent, Warrior has proved an impressive piece of work that definitely rose above my admittedly skeptical expectations. It's not a classic, but it's still pretty impressive and will definitely keep you investing up until its final moments (not entirely suitable use of The National notwithstanding).

3.5

[SeeingisBelieving]

I'm definitely amused by the notion that the long-running Star Trek cinematic franchise has a curse of sorts that results in each odd-numbered installment being substantially weaker than their even-numbered counterparts (though this arguably went out the window with Nemesis, the tenth film in the franchise and also generally considered one of the worst).

I think without Tom Hardy it would have been – his presence alone made it a lot more watchable for me.

There's a memorably potent sequence where McCoy (DeForest Kelley) is made to confront his darkest secret,

I'm glad you mentioned that because it's probably one of the best moments in Star Trek. Apparently Kelley needed some time to recover after playing the scene, such was the connection he felt to losing his own father. I think he's excellent in this film.

The plot also feels a bit listless and stretched-out even as it is peppered with action sequences whose ambition is often beyond their reach.

That's true, but they still manage to be dramatic and exciting even though especially today we'd see them as virtually 2-D:p.

Add in an appropriately versatile score by veteran composer Jerry Goldsmith

His opening music, The Mountain, would actually be one of my Desert Island Discs. It brings me to tears:).

[cricket]

Nice review of Warrior, one of my biggest surprises from the last few years.

[Iroquois]

#731 - A Separation
Asghar Farhadi, 2011

http://goodmoviesbox.com/pics/a/a-separation-2011-still.jpg

A husband and wife are going through a separation pending the husband's agreement to a divorce, but things are complicated by a domestic dispute concerning his mentally ill father.

On the surface, A Separation is like just about every other foreign-language drama in its almost complete lack of external action and its focus on an almost completely interpersonal drama that has the occasional influence by the film's country of origin. As the title states, the film is about a separation between a husband and wife for reasons that aren't entirely to do with falling out of love; namely, husband Nader and wife Simin choose to separate because of mutual incompatibility. Simin wants to move out of Iran with the couple's young daughter, but Nader refuses to agree to a divorce on the grounds that he needs to take care of his Alzheimer's-afflicted father. As if this situation wasn't complicated enough, it gets even more complicated when Nader must find someone else to look after his father after Simin moves out. I don't think that going into further detail is especially necessary, especially considering how much of this film is based around slow-burning personal tensions erupting into emotionally charged diatribes, but there is definitely enough going on to fill two hours.

In keeping with the focus on personal drama, A Separation eschews visual flair in favour of quasi-documentarian camerawork with virtually no music whatsoever. Performances are appropriately naturalistic as players rattle off passionate arguments and contradictions while also conveying adequate amounts of depth to make this an above-average morality play. Nader is the ostensible protagonist of extremely debatable sympathy whose struggle to maintain his dignity and innocence in the face of the film's events is a compelling one. Meanwhile, the characters around him are at least given enough nuance to keep things morally complex and constantly keep you guessing as to how the various conflicts resolve. In addition to telling a fascinating story, the film also touches upon various resonant themes such as family values, mental illness, religion, economic strife, and so forth. It's not so much superficial examination as it is a natural extension of the various characters, and that only feeds into this film proving to be engrossing viewing up until its final moments.

3.5

[cricket]

A Seperation is another movie that was a surprise for me-great flick!

[Iroquois]

#732 - Source Code
Duncan Jones, 2011

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/c/c2/Source_Code.jpg

A soldier is drafted into an experimental program that forces him to relive the same few minutes over and over again in order to prevent a terrorist attack.

Duncan Jones made a strong first impression on me with his minimalist outer-space debut Moon; however, as with far too many directors that left a good first impression, it took me a long time to follow up on any other work that they did. His sophomore effort Source Code may be an upgrade in terms of scale but the actual storytelling seems to have taken a bit of a backward step. While much of what made Moon so good was its palpable air of unpredictability and mystery, Source Code goes for something a lot more familiar with its Groundhog Day-like time-travel plot. It begins with a military pilot (Jake Gyllenhaal) realising that he is inhabitating the body of a civilian as he makes his morning commute on a train. However, after a few minutes a bomb goes off on board the train, killing everyone. It is at this point that Gyllenhaal finds himself inside a small room being talked to by a military liaison (Vera Farmiga). It turns out that the train explosion is the lead-up to an even greater terrorist attack. In order to foil the next attack, Gyllenhaal becomes the unwilling test subject for an experimental technology that allows him to fully inhabit his civilian doppelganger's last few minutes of consciousness (the "source code" of the title) and try to figure out who is responsible for blowing up the train.

Source Code at least builds a tragic storyline as Gyllenhaal becomes increasingly frustrated by his dire situation, especially as he gets to know and develop feelings for the acquaintance (Michelle Monaghan) who sits across from him. This much is borne out by the various little twists and turns in the plot, which do just enough to distinguish the film beyond its well-trod basic outline. Gyllenhaal is good enough as the constantly-conflicted and traumatised protagonist, while Monaghan does okay as the bystander who must contend with Gyllenhaal's increasingly frantic behaviour (though one will naturally question the effectiveness of the romantic sub-plot considering the loop's tight time-frame). Farmiga is decent as the calm yet conflicted mission control who must contend with Jeffrey Wright's duplicitous tech genius. The technical aspects are also pretty solid and don't distract from the plot, only occasionally giving way to ostentatious levels of style - this much is true of one of the film's final scenes, which is definitely a stand-out and really should have been the film's actual ending (though the ending we do get doesn't completely ruin matters). Source Code is hardly the worst follow-up to Moon, but its extremely samey nature does prevent it from leaving much of a positive impression and I definitely hope that Jones' next attempt at high-concept can improve on it.

3

[edarsenal]

Been a very long time since perusing your reviews and played catch up on some very solid, analytical reviews that I thoroughly enjoyed.

Found one movie I've never heard of; The Lobster, which I am now on a quest to locate and watch. Thank you for that.

Agree with Source Code, and about Warrior, which I remember seeing on an impulse after seeing around 4 very high reviews within a few days here and was well rewarded by viewing it.

Locke has been on my watchlist and after reading your review, I do believe I need to bump it up a few and grab it from my library and check it out.

I also enjoyed, and on a number of points - agreed, with your analysis to some old favs; High Plains Drifter, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, and Lethal Weapon.

F@ckin BRAVO

[Rhys]

You're mad.

[Iroquois]

You're mad.

Am I?

[Rhys]

Am I?

In the best possible way! :p

[Iroquois]

I see.

[Iroquois]

#733 - Super 8
J.J. Abrams, 2011

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2011/06/10/arts/SUPER8/SUPER8-articleLarge.jpg

In 1979, a group of schoolkids are working on an amateur film at the same time that their small town is thrown into chaos by a supernatural danger.

As of writing, Super 8 marks J.J. Abrams' sole cinematic work that is not based on an existing intellectual property - however, it does come with the caveat that it shamelessly wears its influences on its sleeves. The most obvious associations that the film conjures up are with the various works of peak Steven Spielberg (who also co-produced this film), especially in how it involves a Goonies-like collection of youthful misfits, though Abrams at least tries to offer a distinctive variation on E.T.'s plot about small-town kids dealing with the sudden arrival of a lone alien creature. The eponymous film format comes into play because the aforementioned misfits are busy working on their own homemade zombie movie at the same time that a passing train is derailed. From there, things get scary as an unknown entity gets loose and starts threatening the townsfolk and the unsurprisingly villainous military move in with the intention of handling the situation. Naturally, it soon ends up falling to the small handful of kids to resolve the situation when the grown-ups prove ineffective in one regard or another.

Super 8 isn't terrible so much as it is extremely passable. It offers virtually nothing of interest in its own right, instead trading off a certain degree of nostalgia thanks to its period setting and Spielberg affectations. Even the protracted teasing out of the film's extraterrestrial threat serves to remind one of the Abrams-produced Cloverfield but with a decidedly weaker handling of tension and scares. For a film that is primarily dependent on following a group of kids, things could have been worse - at least there's two or three kids who are interesting (especially the chubby director kid whose insistence on finishing his zombie movie at all costs does prove to be more engaging than the protagonist's grieving over his recently-deceased mother and awkward crushing on the zombie movie's lead actress). Otherwise, characters either get confined to stock characters or have no memorable definition whatsoever. This even extends to the technically decent effects that are nevertheless deployed in a substandard manner, creating a slick rendition of one very boring and forgettable alien creature. Super 8 had a somewhat promising concept in having its young heroes try to film a movie while a real monster ran amok all over town, but the overall execution is horribly bland for the most part. When the most entertaining part of your effects-heavy Hollywood blockbuster ends up being the deliberately poor footage taken from the main characters' amateur movie, then there's a problem.

2

[Iroquois]

#734 - The Fugitive
Andrew Davis, 1993

http://www.mrcovers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/The-Fugitive.jpg

A doctor is wrongfully accused of murdering his wife and escapes custody in order to clear his name.

I'd argue that The Fugitive is definitely one of the definitive thrillers of the '90s, though I'd also say that it doesn't quite manage to transcend the genre to become an outright classic in the style of, say, The Silence of the Lambs. This doesn't automatically make it a bad film - if anything, I'd definitely hold up this film as an example of how a film being dependable is not a bad thing. The Fugitive is not especially ambitious from a narrative point of view - it provides just enough of a twist to the well-worn "wrong man" narrative to keep things consistently thrilling. Harrison Ford plays a wealthy surgeon who is given the death sentence following the brutal murder of his wife (Sela Ward), though he constantly protests his innocence. When circumstances allow him a chance to escape, he takes it - however, it's not long before a team of federal agents led by a no-nonsense U.S. marshal (Tommy Lee Jones) pick up on his trail and launch a massive manhunt in order to find him. Instead of simply outrunning the law, Ford opts to launch his own secret investigation into his wife's murder and must rely on his wits in order to not only evade the law but bring the true criminals to justice.

The high concept is a solid one and the accompanying plot is paced well enough to keep one from growing bored. Ford once again plays a vulnerable civilian whose resolve to do the right thing not only helps him fight off strong feelings of torment but also provides a believable weakness as he often risks capture in order to do the right thing. While Ford provides a great centre to the film, it is definitely the righteously antagonistic Jones who delivers a true stand-out performance. Though a film as simple as this one seems like a very unlikely contender for Oscars, Jones definitely earns a Supporting Actor win as the relentless investigator who initially comes across as an unlikable villain in his indifference to whether or not Ford is actually guilty but who definitely charms the audience with his sharp-tongued commandeering of every scene in which he appears. Both of these men are good enough to carry both sides of their story as they start to approach the truth of the matter from two very different angles. The supporting cast has their work cut out for them stacking up against these cinematic titans, but they do alright. Jeroen Krabbe brings a familiar European smarminess as Ford's trustworthy colleague, while Joe Pantoliano gets put through the wringer as Jones' beleaguered deputy. This even extends to smaller roles such as Julianne Moore popping up briefly as a hospital staffer or Andreas Katsulas as a man whose ties to the plot ends up being quite significant.

The Fugitive may come across as incredibly dated thanks to factors such as its embossed title font and heavily synthesised score, but it still proves quite re-watchable even in the face of shameless imitators (*cough*Taken 3*cough*) and easy parodies (*cough*Wrongfully Accused*cough*). It doesn't have much depth beneath its cat-and-mouse surface (not even when Ford discovers the awful truth about why he was framed), but that's hardly a major strike against the film at large. If anything, the relatively superficial nature of the film's conflict might just be a point in the film's favour as it aims to provide an entertaining story above all else (and it definitely succeeds for the most part). Even some of the admittedly sillier moments (such as the film's iconic dam sequence) fit the film's intentions and rhythms well. Ford and Jones work well not just on their own but also during their sporadic clashes with one another, plus they are backed up by some decent performers. I don't really consider The Fugitive to be an especially amazing piece of work on the whole, but it still holds up just fine and I am definitely not averse to the prospect of seeing it again despite it having a relative lack of nuance that can and does sink lesser films in the genre.

3

[edarsenal]

been ages since I've seen this one, great write up. Will have to do a revisit.

I do remember liking Jones' character a lot in that one

[nebbit]

Stop doing one a day :nope: It is hard to catch up sometimes :blush:

[Iroquois]

Stop doing one a day :nope: It is hard to catch up sometimes :blush:

At the rate I'm going, I'm pretty sure I'm averaging about two movies a day rather than one.

[The Sci-Fi Slob]

I couldn't get into A Separation. I found it really slow and boring.

[Iroquois]

#735 - Observe and Report
Jody Hill, 2009

http://filmschoolrejects.com/images/observeandreportsmall.jpg

A security guard at a shopping mall must deal with the weird characters that show up at his place of work.

As far as modern comedic actors go, Seth Rogen has proved especially difficult for me to like. His tendency to play into typecasting as a shiftless slacker who may or may not be (but probably is) a stoner that spends entire movies making constant wise-cracks often proves alienating, whether it's in generally irritating romantic comedies like Zack and Miri Make a Porno or even promising genre parodies like Pineapple Express. The fact that I thought he had signs of some untapped potential was one of the reasons why I wanted to seek out Observe and Report, a film where Rogen plays the chief security guard at an ordinary shopping mall. While Rogen is once again playing an incredibly immature goofball, this is a far cry from his usual affable schlub. Rogen's character here is an unhinged loner who lives with his extremely alcoholic mother (Celia Weston), is hopelessly infatuated with one very uninterested shopgirl (Anna Faris), and dreams of becoming an actual police officer despite him being obviously unsuitable for the job. When a number of problems start to converge at his mall - such as a flasher exposing himself to the mall's female patrons or a burglar breaking into the mall's various stores - he decides to step up his game and actually work on being a police officer, butting heads with an embittered detective (Ray Liotta) in the process.

It's kind of amazing just how unapologetic Observe and Report is in its providing of a rather unsettling character study beneath the guise of a silly R-rated comedy starring a Judd Apatow regular. The film's most notorious instance of this is undoubtedly the sequence where Rogen and Faris actually end up going on a date, which shifts into increasingly uncomfortable territory for both characters and audience alike as it progresses. It also lends an impressively dark undercurrent to the usual hijinks as Rogen and his co-workers try to maintain order in the mall, especially when their response to teenage skateboarders breaking the rules is to start beating them up. Rogen provides a surprisingly solid performance, gleefully subverting his coarse but happy-go-lucky cinematic persona with gusto in scenes that range from awkward interviews with local reporters to disastrous psychiatric evaluations. The cast is also full of decent comic performances - Faris at least has enough hints of having more definition than your standard bimbo character, while Liotta proves appropriately disgruntled as the actual detective whose every frame sees him seethe with contempt for Rogen's over-eager wannabe. Minor performers help to build the kind of atmosphere that might inspire a cult reputation, ranging from the motor-mouthed Michael Peña as one of Rogen's excitable subordinates or Weston as his perpetually inebriated mother whose mix of brutal honesty and drunken foolishness manages to work as both funny and tragic. It even extends to the smallest of roles, most prominently when it comes to Aziz Ansari's cameo as a belligerent kiosk operator or Collette Wolfe as a sweet-natured checkout operator who has an unlikely friendship with Rogen.

Observe and Report knows better than to drag out its twisted narrative for too long and keeps things under 90 minutes, which is definitely a point in the film's favour considering how far too many Rogen vehicles flirt with the 120-minute mark. It's admittedly a difficult proposition as far as straight comedy goes thanks to its blending of farcical shenanigans with discomforting pathos worthy of a far more serious film. The latter quality may understandably alienate a lot of people (especially when it comes to some of the darker moments on display here), but it wouldn't be the same film without it. The film is still capable of generating a fair few chuckles with considerable frequency as it indulges everything from disturbing monologues to painful physical slapstick, some of which is lent serious momentum by the film's eclectic soundtrack (which makes excellent use of Queen deep-cuts). Even the more easy humour was enough to amuse. I reckon a lot of this is down to trying to do an extremely absurd take on an otherwise silly and predictable comedy (especially when it comes to the trajectory of the romantic sub-plot - if you could call it romantic). I've struggled to genuinely like Rogen's work in the past, and I figure it's pretty fitting in its own way that the film of his which I currently like the most is the one that has him play a seriously unlikeable (but not entirely hateable) protagonist. It's good enough that I'd rather recommend it to Rogen haters than Rogen fans - an odd recommendation, but it seems to fit.

3

[Iroquois]

#736 - Hackers
Iain Softley, 1995

http://www.agentsofgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Hackers-Movie.jpg

A group of teenage hackers become embroiled in a corporate conspiracy.

It's always interesting to see films that are so thoroughly embody the aesthetics and sensibilites of the decades in which they were made to the point where deriding them as "dated" is practically missing the point. While the mid-'90s yielded no small number of films that encapsulated both the quirky fashions and the jaded mentalities of Generation X (often to a fault), it's hard to find one as connected to the zeitgeist as Hackers. As the name suggests, Hackers follows the adventures of a small collective of teenage computer hackers as they gradually come together in the face of sordid revelations involving a corrupt corporation. The protagonist is one especially prodigious hacker (Jonny Lee Miller) who is looking to reintegrate into society following his own disgraceful hacking scandal but can't help but be drawn to the challenge by not only his inherently righteous nature but also by his belligerent relationship with a fellow student (Angelina Jolie).

If anything, the main appeal in watching Hackers these days seems to be less to do with any following the developments of its convoluted plot or haphazard characterisation than it is to do with observing the film's general aesthetic, especially when it came to either depicting or predicting the rise of the hacker sub-culture. Watching this 1995 film for the first time in 2015 definitely has the unintended effect of making things look goofy, whether it's through the predictably TRON-like visual representations of computer hacking or the use of incredibly dated technology (especially considering how much of the film's conflict is driven by the search for information that can be stored on a 3½" floppy disk). The mid-'90s aesthetic shines through in many other ways such as through Matthew Lillard's character's consistently eccentric wardrobe choices or the thumping techno-driven soundtrack. Unfortunately, making the film into a veritable time capsule in terms of both its audio and visuals does little to actually make it work as an actual film. Hackers then becomes something of a chore when you try to pay attention to the plot, alternately creating an unlikely bond between Miller and Jolie while also having them collaborate with others to fight off both federal agents and criminal hackers. It's a relatively short film and it certainly tries to have more brains than your typical Generation X film, but shades of computer literacy and techno-backed cleverness do little to redeem this film as anything other than a colourful curiosity.

2

[honeykid]

Needless to say I loved Hackers. I've not seen it for a good 8 to 10 years and it was ridiculously dated then. I'm confident I'd still love it though. :D

[Iroquois]

#737 - Calamity Jane
David Butler, 1953

https://theblondeatthefilm.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/calamity-jane-023.jpg

Based on the true story of the notorious cowgirl as she navigates a number of problems involving an aspiring stage performer.

My fundamental pop-cultural understanding of the legendary individual known as "Calamity Jane" mainly being informed by Robin Weigert's drunken, foul-mouthed iteration of the character that was seen in the HBO historical drama Deadwood. As a result, the prospect of watching photogenic triple-threat Doris Day play the exact same role in a musical adaptation based very loosely on Jane's adventures admittedly seemed more than a little daunting even without the promise of musical numbers. Despite these reservations, I still found myself registering some amusement at the first couple of musical numbers where Jane rides into town, but things gradually become less and less interesting as the film progresses, especially when the plot develops around the citizens of Deadwood wanting to see a famous singer (Gale Robbins), who intends to tour Europe instead of America and thus sets off a chain of events that leads to a case of mistaken identity involving her maid (Allyn McLerie) and Jane. That's without bringing into account Jane's complicated relationship with fellow Wild West legend Wild Bill Hickok (Howard Keel), which is about as heated and belligerent as you'd expect even without the teasing of a romantic element.

I'll give Calamity Jane some credit for not stretching things out too long or being genuinely irritating despite its campy musical take on the historical Western. It starts off like it might have some promise behind its rather humble intention of entertaining but it gets incredibly numbing over the course of its relatively brief running time. The numbers are par for the course as far as your average classic Hollywood musical goes, but despite the film's status as a musical these don't always feel strong enough to make the film work as a whole. They're consistently peppy and humourous, which only makes the film's attempts to build drama within its plot feel especially dour. Performers like Day or Keel are about what you'd expect, with the former nailing the accent while still projecting some serious femininity underneath her tomboyish attire. Calamity Jane is hardly the worst musical I've ever seen, but even as far as light-hearted fluff goes it still leaves a lot to be desired.

1.5

[Iroquois]

#738 - Trading Places
John Landis, 1983

http://s2.dmcdn.net/I_1Df/1280x720-ywQ.jpg

A pair of stock-market tycoons make a wager that involves taking one of their more affluent subordinates and secretly forcing him to "swap lives" with a small-time con artist.

Despite the fact that I've been citing The Blues Brothers as my favourite film for a very long time, I haven't really thought all that much of John Landis' other films, even though they tend to be theoretically sound propositions as far as comedies go. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, but there's always the nagging feeling that I should enjoy them more. Trading Places is a more significant example than most as it attempts to update the sensibilities of old screwball comedies for the more jaded and over-stimulated 1980s. The premise is simple enough as it has two old-money brothers (Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy) decide to hold a little bet with one another due to their difference of opinion over the nature of success, specifically how much of an individual's good fortune can be credited to a nature-versus-nurture dichotomy. To this end, they launch a social experiment on two separate fronts. First, they take one of their most successful employees (Dan Aykroyd) and set up a series of unfortunate events that lead to Aykroyd losing everything dear to him - his job, his home, his fiancée, and so forth. Second, they take a lower-class conman (Eddie Murphy) and grant him all the same upper-class privileges that had once been afforded to Aykroyd, and so the games begin...

While Trading Places isn't terrible by any means, there's not a whole lot that makes it earn its status as a classic comedy either. Aykroyd and Murphy make for an ideal odd-couple as an upper-class twit and lower-class hustler respectively, though neither the former's talkative neurosis or the latter's cheeky one-liners yield that much in the way of impressive comedic moments. I'd say that Murphy fares better as the more obviously comical lead who gets some good jokes in as a rough-edged rogue, while Aykroyd does seem to be playing into some serious typecasting as yet another verbose fusspot that lacks serious distinction. Old-school performers do well enough in straightforward roles, whether it's Ameche and Bellamy as two ideologically different but fundamentally identical rich villains or Denholm Elliott as Aykroyd's (and later Murphy's) affable yet long-suffering butler. Other significant supporting roles include Jamie Lee Curtis as the smart-mouthed sex worker who gets roped into the shenanigans or go-to '80s love-to-hate guy Paul Gleason as the wealthy brothers' fixer. Curtis brings a bit of snarky definition to an otherwise stock-standard character, while Gleason channels his trademark dickishness as a callous enforcer who also happens to get the best line in the film. Not every part works - something as small as Jim Belushi's extended cameo as a raucous partygoer threatens to stop the film dead despite an extremely limited amount of screen-time.

Even though Trading Places has some similarities to old screwball comedies, it certainly lacks the quick pacing that characterised a lot of the best examples of such an old genre. In trying to keep both leads sympathetic, it ultimately neuters a lot of the potential humour; Aykroyd's status as an obliviously privileged individual (as evidenced by his over-reacting to an accidental collision with Murphy early in the film) doesn't quite go far enough to make his many humiliations seem genuinely humourous. At least Murphy's side of the story is handled a little better as his perpetually-impoverished character not only handles his riches well but also grows disillusioned with his old life pretty quickly, but that still doesn't result in a lot of chuckles. The film's relatively long running time works against it as it not only drags out the respective rise and fall of Murphy and Aykroyd but also drags out its conclusion; the entire train sequence already feels like the kind of climax that should end the film, which makes the film's falling action involving the stock market feel awfully tacked on even in this somewhat bloated film. Trading Places is not without a certain ineffable charm but as far as comedies go it lacks a lot of big laughs and only seems to provide the occasional moment of cleverness. I guess it's a testament to Landis' talent that he's capable of making films that still feel enjoyable even when they're not.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#739 - Turbo Kid
Yoann-Karl Whissell/Anouk Whissell/François Simard, 2015

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Turbo-Kid.png

In the post-apocalyptic future of 1997, a teenage boy is forced to go up against a dictator who intends to control the wasteland's water supply.

Any movie that uses the concept of retro kitsch as a foundation is liable to be a gamble because of how the dedication to replicating and/or mocking their sources of inspiration can come across as alienating due to either ironic detachment or a lack of originality. I already took David Sandberg's 2015 short Kung Fury to task over its rather superficial parodying of '80s culture that filled out its half-hour running time with so many random concepts that none of them actually fused into a coherent work and made the resulting film feel awfully tedious as a result despite its comedic intentions. Turbo Kid predated Kung Fury by several months and looks to be a very similar proposition; namely, that it would be a supposedly affectionate parody of cult '80s cinema filtered through the technologies and sensibilities of the 21st century. While Kung Fury opted to combine a plethora of cult film tropes with the intention of creating the ultimate '80s pastiche, Turbo Kid decides to narrow its focus by paying homage to post-apocalyptic science-fiction in particular. The eponymous kid (Munro Chambers) is trying to eke out a living in the post-nuclear wasteland; his main concern outside of surviving is trying to collect comic books and aspiring to be like the valiant bike-riding hero featured within them. Circumstances lead to him forming a reluctant partnership with an extremely upbeat girl (Laurence Lebouef), but then things are complicated when they draw the wrath of a one-eyed tyrant (Michael Ironside) who rules the land with an iron fist.

Though it's an undeniably ludicrous film, I reckon part of what makes Turbo Kid work is just how much it doesn't seem to be trying too hard to be funny. It's got the odd bizarre one-liner or laughably brutal act of violence, but aside from the occasional piece of digitally-accomplished effects work this could very well pass for any number of genuine B-movies from the 1980s. Of course, the film is not just empty replication - it manages to create its own personality just fine even as it runs through a number of familiar tropes. Chambers is fine as the unwilling hero whose desire to be like his idolised "Turbo Rider" is put to the test when he not only discovers and dons the trademark outfit and weapon of his role model but is also forced to go up against cult actor Ironside as the megalomaniac overlord whose methods of controlling the land and generating a steady water supply are...barbaric, to say the least. Ironside has built a reputation on playing many formidable and predominantly villainous characters over the years and he definitely commits to chewing as much scenery as possible; despite that, he is still afforded some depth when both his back-story and motivations are revealed. Lebouef may take a little getting used to as a bubbly blonde who can best be compared to Harry Potter's Luna Lovegood as she proves able to fend off foes without letting her sunny disposition slip. There's also a concession to stock-standard badass characters with Aaron Jeffery as a gruff-voiced adventurer who comes across as the bastard love-child of Indiana Jones and Max Rockatansky but stands out as his own character just fine in just the same way that Parsifal from 2019: After the Fall of New York was more than just a Snake Plissken knock-off.

There's an arguably destructive trend that's evolved in certain exploitation-style parody films where the intention is to create as much comically bloody violence as possible so as to cover for the rest of the film's shortcomings. Considering how the executive producer for Turbo Kid is none other than Hobo with a Shotgun creator Jason Eisener, one could easily worry about Turbo Kid heading to the same unsatisfactory conclusion. While Turbo Kid does indulge said trend through a number of scenarios that range from gladiatorial conflicts inside drained swimming pools to brutal arm-wrestling involving re-purposed blenders, it fortunately avoids sinking into empty edginess. The relationship between Chambers and Leboeuf provides a good heart to the film, as does his inevitable confrontation with Ironside. The back-story definitely has a little weight behind it that helps to compensate for its admittedly clichéd nature, plus there are just enough surprising reveals to make the story as a whole work. That isn't to say that the violence on display doesn't work as it comes up with good mixes of practical and digital effects to depict some absurdly cartoonish gore, which do lend the film some charm but thankfully don't become the main reason to care about the film.

While the most viable option when it comes to creating a throwback to retro pop culture is to lapse into full-on parody to the point where any comedy can just as easily come across as a defence mechanism against criticism as it does an organic part of a work, it's refreshing to see a film that isn't dependent on its comedy to be worth something. Turbo Kid definitely nails the '80s aesthetic both through its crisp cinematography and synthesiser-heavy score, but that also extends to its admittedly familiar storyline that still has a tendency to feature obvious homage in favour of subtle substance. That's not to say that the film is devoid of substance as it provides a solid enough plot for the actors to work with, feeling like a surprisingly sincere attempt at recreating the fun associated with watching cheesy '80s films. In summary, I'll try to explain the difference between this and Kung Fury because they feature superficially similar premises but their vastly different executions make a world of difference. Kung Fury is admittedly disadvantaged by being a mere half-hour in length but even with that limited amount of time it still tells a very disjointed story that exists merely to propel its hero from one bizarre set-piece to the next with little reason to care about what happened. Turbo Kid may have a simple story, but it's crafted well and depicted with such enthusiasm that it definitely redeems itself just fine. It might have to work its way up to being great, but it's still a reasonably fun little film and that's what matters.

3

[Iroquois]

#740 - Deathgasm
Jason Lei Howden, 2015

https://bizzam.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/deathgasm-2.jpg

A teenage metalhead accidentally causes his town's populace to turn into demonically-possessed zombies and must join up with his bandmates to save the day.

Deathgasm follows teenage metalhead Brodie as he must move in with his uptight, religious relatives and attend a new public school. Though he is constantly bullied by students and teachers alike (including his own cousin, who is the worst of the lot), he manages to find some other local misfits to befriend, which not only includes the geeky Giles and Dion but also involves older petty criminal Zakk. Zakk eventually brings Brodie along on a home invasion, but when the occupant (a former heavy metal musician) pushes a copy of his band's record into their hands complete with mysterious notes, they get out of there as soon as possible. The notes feature a spell that supposedly grants one power, so when Brodie has one bad day too many he proceeds to play the music on the paper and unintentionally releases a curse that turns most of the town's population to become demonic zombies. It soon falls to Brodie, his bandmates, and his potential girlfriend Medina to step up and fight back against the hordes of the undead - and that's without mentioning the demon-worshipping cult who have their own agenda in regards to the zombie apocalypse...

The film may take a while to set up its characters and conflicts (with the first instances of violence being carried out by the mysterious demon-worshippers), which is arguably a strike against the film as it does struggle a bit to fill out proceedings. It's enough to remind me of 2013's Knights of Badassdom, which also featured a comedic horror story about members of a sub-culture accidentally summoning a great evil. Fortunately, Deathgasm doesn't get too caught up in developing its characters and at least has the sense to speed through its introductory section in a swift manner that invites comparisons to cult director Edgar Wright more so than older influences like Sam Raimi or Peter Jackson. Despite the initial narrative focus on heavy metal, the relevant jokes don't become too esoteric for non-metalhead audiences; sure, there are quite a few jokes that work better if you have an understanding of the genre but for the most part it's superficial enough that the rest of the audience can shrug it off. Of course, this does expose some tedious plot elements such as the complicated connections that form between Brodie, Zakk, and Medina that understandably influence the plot both now and later. Some of the jokes also feel a bit too obvious, such as Brodie's conservative Christian aunt and uncle owning a sizeable collection of sex toys.

The tricky thing about making a film where the main draw tends to be the amusingly over-the-top violence on display is that the onus is on the makers to create some sufficiently innovative scenes of gore and mayhem. Howden definitely does his best as he draws on all the obvious splatter-comedy influences to craft a chaotic free-for-all that isn't afraid to drench its players and settings in litre upon litre of blood. However, one does wonder if the film isn't just running through a checklist of potentially humourous methods with which to maim the living dead, which is obvious considering the variety of improvised weapons that naturally includes power tools and sporting equipment (though the aforementioned sex toys do provide a new avenue, albeit a rather immature one even by the standards of splatter comedy). I do have to give credit to the effects work involved that not only renders the living dead as bloody-eyed abominations but also renders their visceral demises in a tactile manner, to say nothing of the torturous ways in which they'll attack their human victims.

I have to give Deathgasm some credit for providing a halfway-entertaining splatter film that sort of overcomes its potentially alienating gimmick involving heavy metal stereotypes. The front half of the film does turn into something of a chore as it sets up all the narrative pieces; even after the plot gets tense, there aren't too many good pay-offs as the rather predictable character arcs (what arcs there are, anyway) play out in between gruesome scenes of death and destruction. Fortunately, said scenes are captured with frantic technique and competent effects that at least make the film somewhat entertaining. The heavy metal aesthetic is occasionally inventive on a visual level and the soundtrack fits the action well, but the personality that it provides isn't enough to significantly distinguish it is a comedy. Not even the silliness of seeing its leads wearing corpse paint or fantasising about topless lesbian Valkyries is enough to make things work, to say nothing of the film's attempts to introduce a dramatic love-triangle sub-plot to the proceedings and how it plays into some incredibly basic wish fulfillment on the part of its protagonist. Deathgasm is worth a look if you're interested in gory goof-offs that come up with viciously clever ways to kill off human and demon alike, but there's barely anything of substance beyond that.

2.5

[cricket]

A little surprised and disappointed in your feelings on Trading Places. Disappointed because I love it, and surprised because of your love for The Blues Brothers, which you mentioned and was the first thing I thought of. There are 4 John Landis movies I love, with American Werewolf and Animal House to go along with the other two.

I think Observe and Report is easily Rogen's best movie, and it's one of my favorite dark comedies. Much of the credit goes to the supporting cast, who you went into nice detail about.

Calamity Jane is on my 50's watchlist, but I don't expect to be a fan either.

[Friendly Mushroom!]

I loved Calamity Jane, but your review was quite reasonable.

Years almost over Iro; do plan on continuing this into next year or are you going take a break? Maybe catch up on reading or playing video games?

[Iroquois]

A little surprised and disappointed in your feelings on Trading Places. Disappointed because I love it, and surprised because of your love for The Blues Brothers, which you mentioned and was the first thing I thought of. There are 4 John Landis movies I love, with American Werewolf and Animal House to go along with the other two.

I think Observe and Report is easily Rogen's best movie, and it's one of my favorite dark comedies. Much of the credit goes to the supporting cast, who you went into nice detail about.

Calamity Jane is on my 50's watchlist, but I don't expect to be a fan either.

I mentioned this when people were questioning my relatively low rating of An American Werewolf in London earlier this year, but I do wonder how much of my appreciation for The Blues Brothers can be traced back to it being a childhood favourite more so than any objective quality that it has. If I had never seen The Blues Brothers before and only just watched it for the first time today, there's a good chance that I might not actually like it that much - I can only guess how I'd feel, but for all I know it'd get a 3.5 or even a 3.

I loved Calamity Jane, but your review was quite reasonable.

Years almost over Iro; do plan on continuing this into next year or are you going take a break? Maybe catch up on reading or playing video games?

I only intended to do this for one year because I "appropriated" this idea from TheUsualSuspect, who also intended to carry out a movie-a-day challenge for a year (ultimately, he did not make it through a year), plus I figured that this would be the year where I didn't have any major travel plans or anything that might possibly interfere with said movie-watching. I think after this I'll go back to just reviewing as I see fit, most likely in the case of new releases or films that I think deserve attention for one reason or another.

[cricket]

I wondered that too about if I saw The Blues Brothers now for the first time. I saw it as a kid growing up in Chicago so that was big.

[Iroquois]

#741 - Dope
Rick Famuyiwa, 2015

http://frontrowcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/dope1.jpg

Three geeky high-school students attend a local drug dealer's birthday party only to find themselves unwillingly drawn into the criminal underworld.

Dope provides a rather interesting take on the hood film by ostensibly being set in a present filled with references to Internet memes and Bitcoins but also attempts to establish a certain degree of idiosyncrasy by having its lead trio be obsessed with the music and aesthetics of "golden age" hip-hop. Our three leads (Shameik Moore, Tony Revolori, and Kiersey Clemons) are students at a Californian public school who do have to worry about surviving potential shootings and gang wars. Moore is granted precedence as the earnest overachiever who is looking to get into Harvard but also feels himself being unwillingly pulled towards the local drug game due to a number of factors, whether it's gang-related peer pressure or his infatuation with an attractive young woman (Zoë Kravitz). While attending the birthday party of a local dealer (A$AP Rocky), Moore has to escape when the police bust the place; he later discovers that his backpack has been stuffed with several packages of ecstasy and a gun. Though he and his friends desperately want to get rid of the contraband as quickly as possible, things are naturally not that simple.

The film starts off promisingly with a self-aware tone (complemented by Forest Whitaker as the matter-of-fact narrator whose intonations lend this potentially gritty film a vibe more becoming of your average Wes Anderson film) but as time wears on the film sinks deeper and deeper into being the kind of serious hood film that it originally mocked. It's handled messily enough that one can easily debate just how deliberate the shift in tone ends up being, though later attempts to compensate through humourous interludes can be seen as arguments for and against both sides of the case. Giving Moore precedence seems the most obvious through-line for the film, though it does so at the expense of his companions; the film pays some lip-service towards developing Clemons' butch lesbian but ultimately wastes a potentially interesting character, while Revolori is given even less attention or definition. The progression of the film's narrative also falls into some familiar plot points, such as Moore's upstanding goals such as going to college or hooking up with Kravitz's girl next door being challenged by Rocky's involving him in drug-running or Chanel Iman's voracious party girl easily seducing him. Even the film's more ostensibly comedic vibe doesn't always jibe well with the film's attempts at drama, especially as the film progresses and the group starts to take greater and greater risks to not only escape enemies but get rid of the bag of drugs.

The characters' retro style bleeds through into the soundtrack and peppers the soundtrack with old-school hits by the likes of Public Enemy, A Tribe Called Quest, and Nas (plus a solid original score by Germaine Franco). There's the occasional concession to playful artifice such as Moore's breaking the fourth wall (especially when the film reaches its climax, which is alternatively effective and difficult) or a party montage comprised of Instagram posts and comments that naturally seems very flash-in-the-pan but at least offers an inventive variation on an otherwise banal plot device. The characters are largely underwritten but the cast have enough chemistry and individual talent to carry it off well, especially in the case of the lead trio functioning better as a unit due to their relative lack of individualised character development. The lack of characterisation is also symptomatic of various other script issues, whether it's Whitaker's narrator disappearing from the film after the first act or the various set-ups that don't really go anywhere, but Dope gets by thanks to its relatively fresh take on the hood film that invokes a creative enough aesthetic to make up for its narrative shortcomings. There's a lot of untapped potential at work here - I do reckon things would have been a bit more interesting if Clemons had been the protagonist instead of Moore - but as it stands it's still an enjoyably flashy attempt at capturing the zeitgeist.

3

[honeykid]

I saw The Blues Brothers as a kid. It was still ****.

[Iroquois]

#742 - Bad Santa
Terry Zwigoff, 2003

http://www.therobotsvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/badsanta2.jpg

A pair of small-time crooks masquerade as Santa Claus and his helper in order to steal from department stores.

Though I like to think that I have a pretty good handle on what types of comedy I'll find funny, I still try to take chances on unlikely candidates in case they end up yielding some unexpected laughs, which might just be better than expected laughs due to the increased spontaneity. Bad Santa admittedly looks pretty mediocre on the outside, but it was directed by Terry Zwigoff of Ghost World fame and looked like it had the potential to provide some solid low-brow comedy thanks to one very curmudgeonly Billy Bob Thornton in the lead role. Thornton plays a low-life criminal who has worked out an effective money-making scheme; each Christmas, he finds work as a department store Santa Claus and, together with a little person (Tony Cox) who poses as one of Santa's elves, works to break into the store's safes and steal the cash inside, which should be enough for both men to live on for the rest of the year. This operation is threatened from within by Thornton's many toxic vices, most notably his debilitating alcoholism and generally antisocial behaviour (to say nothing of his rampant sexual proclivities). These are just a few of the factors that pose a problem for the duo's latest sting.

Unfortunately, Bad Santa is an extremely one-note excuse for a subversive comedy. Thornton plays an extremely reprehensible individual and the film's primary joke is how most people understandably find him unpleasant (including long-time partner Cox, who is very vocal in his disdain for his colleague). The few people that don't feel revulsion at his antics tend to have some extreme quirks, whether it's a bartender (Lauren Graham) who becomes his friend with benefits thanks to a latent Santa fetish or a chubby, simple-minded kid (Brett Kelly) who believes that Thornton is really Santa and won't stop pestering him. Other major characters that round out the film include the store's nervous manager (John Ritter) and its acerbic detective (Bernie Mac); the former makes for a tolerably timid straight-man to the lead duo's foolishness while the latter delivers what might just be the film's best comedic performance as the no-nonsense investigator who knows how to deal with the situation. Aside from that, the cast is a revolving door of wide-eyed children and offended parents that is occasionally injected with someone different like the older kids that constantly bully Kelly or Cloris Leachman once again playing a dotty grandma. This would be alright if any of them yielded even remotely consistent laughs - sadly, this is not the case.

Bad Santa is considerably compromised by its attempt to deliver a comedy that is crude but not without heart. This much is shown in Thornton's grouchy connection to the incredibly naive Kelly (with the former unsurprisingly warming to the latter, even if its trite nature is partially disguised by Thornton's perpetual bitterness), while his relationship with Graham doesn't even receive that level of nuance. Humour ranges from the inappropriately foul-mouthed to the physically painful to minimal success; I sort of resent the fact that the biggest laughs this film got out of me came about due to the extremely basic deployment of groin attacks in one scene. Not even the absurdly dissonant yet strangely appropriate soundtrack filled with Christmas standards and classical pieces is enough to grant this film enough personality to get away with being this tiresome. Bad Santa is a generally poor comedy that does get by on the basis of the off-beat performances by its cast more so than it does through any of the jokes or attempts at pathos. While the Bad News Bears remake showed how watering down the concept of a drunken Thornton being forced to interact with impressionable children was a bad idea, it looks like allowing the same scenario to play out with the relative freedom of an R-rating doesn't guarantee much better in terms of results.

2

[Iroquois]

#743 - Kung Fury
David Sandberg, 2015

https://dr56wvhu2c8zo.cloudfront.net/kungfury/assets/2173642e-fecd-4226-ad2c-abe9bd4c99d4/kung-fury-time-travel.jpg

An '80s-style action parody concerning the titular police officer as he decides to go back in time to fight Adolf Hitler.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1323875-kung-fury.html).

1.5

(Additional notes: alright, I don't totally hate it anymore but it's still more of a dry slog than any half-hour action comedy full of '80s jokes has any right to be.)

[Iroquois]

#744 - Star Wars: The Force Awakens
J.J. Abrams, 2015

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/rp5z2dwjyl7utj8wdphq.jpg

As a galaxy-wide war rages between a fascist regime and a resistance movement, a defecting soldier joins forces with a desert scavenger in order to complete a mission that will turn the tide of the war.

"Safe" is not a word that has seriously applied to any of the first six films in the Star Wars franchise. The original 1977 film was a modestly-budgeted space-opera that was just such a weird and risky project that nobody expected it to become as huge a hit as it did. Follow-up film The Empire Strikes Back became famous off the back of what is arguably the greatest plot twist in cinema history. Even as creator George Lucas made the transition from budding cinematic maverick to one-man marketing machine, his decisions regarding the progression of the franchise do not come across as reluctant acquiescence to the demands of executives and consumers; rather, they reflect a certain capitalistic hubris as he chooses to do things such as insert the cute and cuddly Ewoks into Return of the Jedi even though such a decision might threaten to scupper the series' nascent reputation as a well-rounded and respectable work of science fantasy. The prequels have understandably been reviled as dull, convoluted, and nonsensical affairs that failed to live up to expectations, but it is flaws such as The Phantom Menace's focus on dry topics such as trade disputes and political strife that reflected Lucas's refusal to play into audience's expectations - for better or worse, Star Wars has never really been "safe".

Which brings me to J.J. Abrams.

Prior to The Force Awakens, three of Abrams' four outings as a film director have been based on existing franchises. He started as a journeyman director for Mission: Impossible III, which attempted to compensate for the laughable absurdity of John Woo's Mission: Impossible II by playing out in as straightforward and unobtrusive a manner as possible (which only guaranteed that the end result would ultimately end up being the dullest installment in the franchise). His follow-up was the reboot of beloved sci-fi franchise Star Trek, which opted to dump the original series' tendency towards philosophical substance and nuanced characterisation in favour of flashy action set-pieces that reduced its cast to stock characters in the process. 2013's Star Trek Into Darkness followed up with more of the same, though this time around it opted to re-interpret the critically acclaimed Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan with decidedly unimpressive results. Even Abrams' sole original film Super 8 was defined by how much it owed to old-school Spielberg films like E.T. or Close Encounters of the Third Kind instead of any particular distinguishing qualities on Abrams' part. Abrams' whole directorial style is so lacking in personality that the main joke his detractors make about his films is a technical nit-pick involving his overuse of lens flares.

In short, J.J. Abrams is a "safe" director.

Of course, this much is pretty clear when it comes to the bare-bones narrative of The Force Awakens and how it apes that of the original film. The film's plot is once again driven by the conflict between a fascist regime (here the First Order, who form out of the remnants of the original series' Galactic Empire) and a rebel alliance (imaginatively referred to as the Resistance). It also opens with Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) acquiring plans that reveal the location of Luke Skywalker, who has disappeared from the galaxy and become the stuff of legend. His whereabouts are sought by the Resistance and Order alike - after Poe is ambushed by the Order and vicious enforcer Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), he proceeds to stash the plans inside trusty droid BB-8 and send it away from harm. BB-8 soon crosses paths with Rey (Daisy Ridley), a young woman who is eking out a meagre living by scavenging parts from the many disused spaceships that pepper the planet's sandy surface. When novice Order soldier "Finn" (John Boyega) has a crisis of conscience during his first day of the job, he opts to abandon ship with Poe and - after being separated from Poe - eventually meets Rey. Their mutual goal to escape the Order's wrath soon evolves into a quest that sees them speed across the galaxy, encountering friend and foe alike in the process.

Given the franchise's recent history, it's understandable that the powers that be would want to avoid taking any risks that could potentially alienate fans but that also means that the resulting film doesn't have much in the way of distinct personality. In trying to invoke parallels to the original trilogy though everything from plot progressions to background details, it frequently tap-dances on the fine line between homage and rehash to distracting effect. It's enough to knock the wind out of some of the more organic reintegrations of characters from previous films, whether it's Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) searching for their old ship or General Leia (Carrie Fisher) still leading a resistance movement against an age-old enemy. At least they're still able to embody the same charming aspects of their characters many decades later, with the interplay between Han and Chewie still being as belligerent yet heartfelt as always and Leia being strong enough that you wish her introduction didn't come so late in the film. This even extends to the settings as the film doesn't try to invent any radically different new locations for the action, instead settling for a series of familiar settings that range from barren deserts to frozen wastelands. Even minor references such as the Millennium Falcon's holographic chess-like game or the ball-shaped training droid seem less like organic parts of the film's universe than deliberate attempts to reference former glories, often at the expense of an audience being able to lose themselves in the film.

Considering how this film and any immediate sequels will naturally be more dependent on the new blood more so than the old, it's just as well that The Force Awakens at least manages to set up some tolerable enough characters to go along with its new plot. Rey and Finn share protagonist duties, with the former filling out the expected role of a nominally unremarkable person who begins to realise a greater destiny through the events of the film; in other words, she's the new Luke. Ridley isn't bad in the role but it does lack definition beyond some abandonment issues (which do prevent some plot holes) and she can only do so much with the character (in this film, at least). By that logic, Finn becomes the new Han as he plays a self-serving pragmatist who isn't wholly into the concept of open rebellion; his struggle to reconcile his traumatic past as a child soldier with his newfound desire to not just survive but live proves a relatively complex motivation that understandably makes him reluctant to oppose the Order that he knows first-hand is extremely ruthless. Even then, that character arc is undersold by the script's attempts to force some Han-like banter onto Finn that doesn't quite flow; it's a testament to Boyega that he can sell the constant shifting between befuddled one-liners and furrowed-brow angst, though he is considerably better at pulling off the latter. Poe is what you'd get if the original series' Wedge Antilles had a more significant part to play in the main narrative - even being played by an actor as charismatic as Isaac doesn't infuse him with a whole lot of definition even as he creates a fire-forged friendship with fellow rebel Finn.

Outside of the main collection of heroic characters, things are a little sparse. The characterisation of Kylo Ren takes on a meta-fictional twist by having him be a character who literally wishes he could be like Darth Vader but constantly has trouble maintaining the same degree of level-headed menace. Conversely, revelations about his true origins and what's underneath his mechanical mask feel anti-climatic enough that I do have to wonder how much of that is by design to contrast the series' most notorious revelation. Other villainous characters don't fare any better, whether it's Domnhall Gleeson as the sallow-faced Order general or Gwendoline Christie as the silver-suited Stormtrooper captain. Having it so that all three of them answer to a shadowy "supreme leader" (Andy Serkis) also seems ridiculous and not just because that particular character's design just looks so bland and unimaginative. This also extends to Maz Kanata (Lupita N'yongo), whose diminutive stature and humourous mysticism only serves to make her come across as a pretty blatant Yoda replacement. It doesn't feel like the creation of a new and memorable character so much as a variation upon a theme, which is not automatically a problem but does feed into why The Force Awakens doesn't feel like it distinguishes itself - especially when you consider BB-8 being a more animated (literally and figuratively) version of R2-D2.

Of course, any dependence of plot and characterisation is all for naught if the film can't manage to provide some appropriately bombastic action to go along with the fantastic premise. In that regard, The Force Awakens seems to tick every box when it comes to providing traditional Star Wars action as it indulges everything from lightsaber duels to aerial dogfights. Abrams' previous films have tended towards action-packed spectacles that have involved special effects to a significant degree. The camerawork indulges all sorts of fluid movements to contrast with the relatively static cinematography of previous Star Wars films. In attempting to define itself in concurrence with current cinematic blockbuster trends, it indulges ostentatious techniques ranging from Dutch-angled tracking shots to handheld crash-zooms as part of its attempts to capture the action. This only contributes to a certain weightlessness to action sequences and do feel like attempts to tick off boxes more so than create truly memorable sequences - the most egregious example involves a sequence in which a handful of heroic characters must fight off competing smuggling gangs, with the methods they use going into extremely unsurprising territory. At the very least you've got to commend the technical workmanship that's poured into the effects work on offer, though it's probably not a good thing I'm more likely to recall non-action scenes than action scenes.

Being a film that is most definitely guaranteed a sequel above all others, The Force Awakens manages to tease out all manner of plot points with the unspoken promise that they will be resolved in later installments, but that also has the effect of making the film feel fundamentally incomplete beyond its status as the first installment in an epic trilogy. Even so, not being able to stand alone certainly wasn't enough to stop people from appreciating The Empire Strikes Back, so it's obvious that the problems with The Force Awakens lie elsewhere. One can easily take apart the many ways in which the film arguably panders to the fanbase through call-backs large and small, even if the decision to do so is a conscious attempt to win back the crowd after the largely unfavourable reaction to the prequel trilogy. Of course, trying to please the crowd all but guarantees that the resulting film will struggle to stand out in its own right, which is a shame considering how much untapped potential is on display here. I can only hope that the powers that be decide to take the goodwill generated by The Force Awakens as a sign to actually strike out and try something more ambitious in future installments. Until then, we'll just have to be glad that this film, while not exactly close to being a modern classic, is at least a film that's disappointing less because of how it fails to fulfill expectations than because of how it fulfills them all too well.

3

[Friendly Mushroom!]

Cant wait till i read that review! Though i need to go to the theatre first. Which wont be for a while. :bored:

[Iroquois]

#745 - The Host
Bong Joon-ho, 2006

http://asiabeam.com/v/var/resizes/movies/The%20Host/shots/Gwoemul%20screenshot%2002.png

When a giant amphibious mutant emerges from the Han River and starts terrorising citizens, a father risks everything to find his missing daughter.

The other Bong Joon-ho films I've seen have tended to be rather effective works, whether it's the morally grey crime drama of Memories of Murder or the grim dystopia of Snowpiercer. Based off those examples, I had confidence in him being able to provide an engaging variation on the monster movie with The Host. Following on from a prologue showing toxic chemicals being poured into the Han River, the film skips ahead to the present day where a deadbeat dad (Bong regular Song Kang-ho) works in the riverside food stand owned by his father (Byun Hee-bong). His siblings are somewhat more successful than he is; his brother (Park Hae-il) may be unemployed and alcoholic but he still managed to graduate from college, while his sister (Doona Bae) is still a prominent archer despite her tendency to hesitate at important moments. His daughter (Ko Ah-sung) is naturally disappointed in him for a number of reasons. This dysfunctional family conflict is upset when the riverside park where Song works is besieged by a mutated amphibian that starts attacking bystanders, eventually grabbing Ko during its rampage. Though Ko is naturally presumed dead as the military and biohazard units move in to secure the location, Song and his family don't give up hope and soon seize the opportunity to break out of quarantine in order to find Ko, who has improbably survived the creature's onslaught and made contact via mobile.

Unfortunately, Bong's clever approach to genre cinema isn't quite enough to make The Host into a great film, but it's enough to keep it from being bad as well. The creature itself is almost a secondary concern as Bong is more concerned with capturing people's reactions towards its existence, often invoking the same sort of virus paranoia that surrounded epidemics such as SARS or bird flu as the authorities become more concerned with quarantining potential infectees than actually doing anything about the creature itself (and that's before certain developments do come to light). There's a good through-line as Song and his family do whatever it takes to find Ko even as it puts them more and more in harm's way. This does lead to an otherwise-immaculate film indulging a lot of the same monster-movie clichés, most notably through certain characters surviving some unlikely circumstances. For a supposed horror film, it's a little lean on actual scares, but credit does have to go to the effects team for creating a sufficiently unnatural-looking monster and blending its presence in with real-world footage just fine. The Host is still a rather watchable film that's less concerned with fearsome spectacle than it is with examining the actual fallout of such a disaster, taking a page out of Gojira's book by using its monster as a manifestation of a real-world issue in the process. This does make it suffer as an engaging piece of work, but not without good reason.

3

[Iroquois]

#746 - Robin Hood
Ridley Scott, 2010

http://i.lv3.hbo.com/assets/images/movies/robin-hood/robin-hood-1024.jpg

Based on the folk tale of the legendary English outlaw who fights against the men who seek to enforce the King's oppressive tax laws.

When word first surfaced that Ridley Scott would be making a film based on folk hero Robin Hood, the word was that it would subvert the popular perception of the character by opting instead to centre on said character's notorious arch-nemesis, the Sheriff of Nottingham, as he attempted to catch his outlaw prey. Regardless of how justified such a perspective was, it certainly proved a bit more intriguing than another cinematic reiteration on the well-worn tale of a dashing archer and his band of thieves who would work outside the law towards fundamentally altruistic goals. However, this isn't that type of film. Instead, Robin Hood comes across as a hybrid of two earlier Scott films - namely, the epic prodigal narrative of Gladiator mixed with the Crusade-era melodrama of Kingdom of Heaven. Regular Scott collaborator Russell Crowe stars as the eponymous outlaw, who starts the film as a crusader serving under King Richard (Danny Huston) but whose dedication to truth and honour ironically draw the ire of the king and lead to Crowe and his companions being pilloried. When the tide of the latest battle turns for the worse, Crowe and his companions make their way home, trading on the misfortune of some recently-ambushed English soldiers in order to make safe passage home. However, Crowe feels bound to honour the wishes of one dying soldier and instead plans to take the man's sword to his father (Max von Sydow), who is himself under siege from the crown's incredibly taxing regime. Combine this with a traitorous Englishman (Mark Strong) collaborating with the French and there is certainly a lot of conflict brewing...

Even though there's not a whole lot to suggest that this is anything more than another Ridley Scott exercise in creating epic cinema at its most stolid, Robin Hood isn't as completely dry and intolerable as one might expect. Crowe might be operating in Gladiator mode as a gruff yet honourable soldier who is made to adjust to a new life due to extenuating circumstances, but he makes it work well enough. At the very least, he is offered a decent foil in the form of a Marian (Cate Blanchett) who naturally proves to be a defiant figure who is not without inner motivation or rationale. Even antagonistic figures in the tale are offered some degree of characterisation; the Commodus-like Prince John (Oscar Isaac) gets at least one scene that stops him being a pantomime villain as he delivers a speech that arguably justifies his severe taxation policies, and later developments at least make his villain status seem rather ambiguous. Such ambiguity is not apparent with Strong's character, who has no qualms about selling out to the French. Other characters tend to fade into the background, such as the various merry men or von Sydow as the blind old knight who takes Crowe in for reasons that soon become apparent.

As it stands, Robin Hood is an undeniably bland excuse for a modern Hollywood period piece, but that doesn't mean it's worthy of sheer hatred. There are moments that threaten to make it watchable, whether it's the belligerent relationship of convenience that builds between Crowe and Blanchett or the film's occasional inclusion of an action sequence. At the very least, it builds a watchable piece of Middle Ages cinema that at least makes for a more coherent (if no less ordinary) tale than the choppy theatrical version of Kingdom of Heaven. Despite Scott once again indulging his usual eye for strong art direction and production design, there's still a limpness to the actual action that reminds one of Scott's older work at best and feels extremely passable at worst. The music fails to leave much of an impression despite its mixing of grandstanding orchestras and traditional-sounding pipe music. Robin Hood is hardly the worst film Scott's ever done, but there's very little here that indicates how this protracted origin story starring a middle-aged Russell Crowe was a better idea than actually going through with the proposed Sheriff of Nottingham film. The intention of creating a morally conflicted Sheriff goes out the window since he only has about three scenes in total, the first of which sees him forcing a kiss on an understandably recalcitrant Marian. That alone seems to indicate just how much wasted potential is on display here.

2

[honeykid]

I thought The Host was OK, but it's a poor monster movie, which is what I wanted and was told it was. When they can be bothered to put up some monster action, though, they do it well. Which only makes the rest feel more wasted. :(

[freeative]

Good luck bRo !
i like this movies , i advice you to watch it !
Brooklyn Bizarre

[Iroquois]

#747 - Pandorum
Christian Alvart, 2009

http://mediabreach.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/pandorum.jpg

Two astronauts wake up from cryosleep to find that their futuristic spaceship is not only in a state of severe disrepair but is also populated by bloodthirsty mutants.

Pandorum starts off on a somewhat promising note as a brief prologue establishes that Earth's resources have dwindled over the course of the next two centuries, prompting the creation of a gigantic vessel that is designed to reach the nearest Earth-like planet and colonise it. The film then begins properly with two members of the crew waking up from suspended animation into a sealed room, their knowledge of the situation affected by cryosleep-induced memory loss. The duo then proceed to do what they can to figure out what's going on and how to fix the ship, with one (Ben Foster) venturing out of the room through an incredibly narrow crawlspace while the other (Dennis Quaid) serves as mission control and guides him through the ship. While on the outside, Foster discovers the truth of the situation; while there are other survivors on board, they are vastly outnumbered by a race of Morlock-like mutants who prowl the ship looking for humans on which to feed. As if the claustrophobia-inducing architecture or the flesh-eating monsters weren't enough of a threat, Foster also has to contend with the possibility of his fellow survivors (and even himself) being a threat due to the eponymous "pandorum", which is the movie's preferred term for space-induced insanity.

Beginning the film with the characters waking up in a bizarre situation with no memory of how they got there is as good a way to start as any, but then the onus is on the rest of the film to measure up. What little imagination is lent to the creatures' design often stands out in a bad way, such as their use of spears that give off such a luminescent glow that human characters can easily see them coming. There's nothing too frightening about them save for some heavily telegraphed jump scares that drop off in both quality and quantity as the film progresses; if anything, the real horror comes from environmental factors and the potential effect of "pandorum" on the ship's inhabitants (when they're not being affected by more conventional forms of insanity, of course). Unfortunately, the film can't seem to reconcile its more interesting elements with its compulsion towards providing pulpy space-horror thrills, ultimately compromising itself as a result. Foster and Quaid turn in serviceable B-movie performances (especially the latter as the increasingly agitated commanding officer) and the film's occasional ventures into the realm of psychological drama don't ring completely hollow; not only that, but the film does at least build a solid atmosphere with its seemingly haunted ship full of cramped steel hallways and sickly glowing computers. However, these aspects are not enough to save what is ultimately an extremely pedestrian excuse for a horror movie.

2

[Iroquois]

#749 - Amy
Asif Kapadia, 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/film/Cannes-Festival/amyfilm1-xlarge.jpg

A documentary about Amy Winehouse, the renowned British singer who rose to fame before dying suddenly at the age of 27.

A documentary is not only supposed to deliver information about a subject to an audience but also make them care one way or another about the subject being covered. I have next to no interest in professional racing, yet I still liked Senna, Asif Kapadia's 2010 documentary about Formula One champion Ayrton Senna as he rose to prominence before meeting an early demise in a collision during a race. While I'm naturally more interested in music than sports, I also had very little awareness of Amy Winehouse beyond having heard the same handful of hit songs and also known about her highly-publicised drug addiction that led to her early death in 2011. Much like Senna, Amy is dedicated to covering the rise and fall of the iconic British songstress through an impersonal collage of audio-only interviews mixed with archival footage of its subject from both public and private collections. It chronicles Winehouse's journey from fresh-faced teenager through to promising ingenue before capturing her meteoric rise to fame on the back of some extremely resonant music that blended genres like soul, jazz, and blues to remarkably accessible and popular effect. However, there's a seedy underbelly to Winehouse's seemingly glamourous lifestyle as a combination of influences ranging from toxic relationships to the suffocating demands of celebrity culture prompts her to develop a drug addiction and an eating disorder, which were both factors in her untimely passing.

Maybe it's just because the only other Kapadia film I've seen is Senna, but it's extremely easy to draw comparisons between the two films for reasons that go beyond their subjects' superficial similarities. Just as Senna criticised the Formula One industry over their lax approach to safety regulations that ultimately resulted in Senna's death, so too does Amy demonise the culture that sprung up around Winehouse's self-destructive habits and only fed into the vicious cycle. Clips of talk-show hosts making wisecracks about Winehouse's infamous drug habits are inter-cut with unsettling images of her physical and emotional deterioration as a result of her habits. There's a lot of home-video footage to draw on thanks to a number of Winehouse's loved ones and colleagues carrying around video cameras all the time, which works to humanise Winehouse as a carefree young woman who earnestly wants to be good at what she does but also ends up capturing her at less flattering instances such as her stint at rehab or failing to perform at a packed concert. While there are some obvious scapegoats at work (most obvious Winehouse's musician ex-husband Blake Fielder, who is a major influence and accomplice when it comes to her drug habits), even supposedly supportive individuals like her family or management have their shortcomings (though her childhood friends are arguably exceptions as they are just worried about their friend).

I'm not sure how much bearing one's personal opinion on Winehouse or her music will make, though even with my largely indifferent (but not downright hateful) attitude the frequent musical numbers (complete with on-screen lyrics) become a bit of a chore due to their length and frequency. Not to say that they aren't necessarily bad, but there are arguably a few too many and only add to the film feeling a bit too underweight to really deserve to be two hours. They're still arguably necessary to really make one really understand how much talent was lost when Winehouse died, but even without her musical ability there is a certain amount of tragedy to watching her story unfold on many different cameras. Amy is not a fundamentally bad film, but the methodical craft that goes into creating an impartial-looking collection of interviews and clips only goes so far in building a watchable film. It will definitely depend upon how much interest you might have in Winehouse as a performer but it's definitely enough to challenge dismissive perceptions about her more notorious public antics and easily makes villains of those who would perpetuate the more toxic aspects of celebrity culture. Hardly great, but still fairly watchable.

2.5

[Iroquois]

Damn it, I missed #748, which was a re-watch of The Force Awakens hence why it slipped my mind. The review's on the previous page, but I'm wondering whether or not I should bump it up to a 3.5.

[Iroquois]

#750 - Love & Mercy
Bill Pohlad, 2014

http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/paul-dano-love-and-mercy-600x300.jpg

A biopic alternating between two different periods in the life of Brian Wilson, one of the founding members of the Beach Boys

Trying to come up with inventive variations on the biopic beyond the standard cradle-to-grave narrative is always a challenge, and Love & Mercy distinguishing itself by opting to cover two separate narratives concerning its subject instead of one. The film is about Brian Wilson, one of three brothers who helped to co-found the popular surf-rock group known as the Beach Boys. It constantly switches between Wilson during two different decades. One plot takes place in the mid-1960s and follows a young Wilson (Paul Dano) who opts out of touring with the rest of the band after experiencing a panic attack on an aeroplane; instead, he decides to begin working on producing new music while his bandmates are away. The end result is an ambitious collection of baroque pop songs that would eventually come to be known as Pet Sounds, which is now regarded as one of the best albums ever made but whose initial commercial failure fed into young Wilson's growing mental issues. The other plot takes place in the 1980s and sees a middle-aged Wilson (John Cusack) living an extremely mundane and unassuming life that is shaken up when he meets an attractive Cadillac dealer named Melinda Ledbetter (Elizabeth Banks); however, their burgeoning relationship is threatening by domineering psychiatrist Eugene Landy (Paul Giamatti), whose strict orders may be harming Wilson instead of helping him.

While neither one of these plots is strong enough to properly sustain a full two-hour drama, what makes Love & Mercy so distinctive is the way in which both sides of the film will complement one another. The Dano half goes for a straightforward behind-the-scenes dramatisation that shows how Wilson's creative process in crafting one of the greatest pop albums ever made attracted a fair bit of derision and skepticism; it definitely features its fair share of clichés in this regard, especially in having Wilson's bandmate Mike Love (Jake Abel) vocally contradict Wilson's actions at almost every turn. Conversely, the Cusack half plays out very much like A Beautiful Mind in its familiar tale of a psychologically tortured genius who ultimately depends on the love of a good woman to help see him through his trials. Neither plot is especially inventive and are factors that ultimately keep this film from being truly great, but director Pohlad is capable of infusing both sides with distinctive technique. Dano's half feels very down-to-earth with its candid fly-on-the-wall cinematography of studio scenes contrasting with uncomfortable visual exaggerations meant to evoke Wilson's troubled mind, while Cusack's half has a lack of fanciful technique that reflects the older Wilson's more relaxed (albeit heavily sedated) state of existence.

With the various narrative strands and the details within proving major hurdles for the film to overcome, it's just as well that the film is able to back it up with some fairly decent performances. Dano is easily the stand-out, perfectly embodying Wilson's paradoxically confident yet nervous disposition as he is alternately proud of and ashamed by his radical musical experimentation and the reactions that it provokes - and that's before he starts to experiment with drugs and experience greater and greater panic attacks. On the other hand, Cusack initially seems miscast as the older Wilson but his tendency not to act too hard outside of his comfort zone can arguably be seen as a representation of how Wilson is most definitely not himself while under Landy's supervision. Consummate character actor Giamatti delivers an appropriately unhinged performance as Landy, compensating for his character's fairly shallow development by properly throwing himself into playing such a superficially friendly but fundamentally vicious individual. Banks gets to play the straight woman who ultimately acts as Wilson's saviour, committing to what is arguably a rather basic role in the process. These are all major reasons why Love & Mercy is able to rise above its potentially limiting status as a biopic but their strength is not quite enough to make it great. The main quartet deliver solid performances and the film's at least somewhat interesting on a visual level (plus it has Oscar-winning composer Atticus Ross providing appropriately moody original music in between the sunny-sounding licensed songs) and it's definitely a decent film in just about every regard.

3

[Iroquois]

#751 - Southpaw
Antoine Fuqua, 2015

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3196624/images/o-SOUTHPAW-facebook.jpg

A wealthy boxing champion with a volatile temper loses everything following a public outburst with tragic consequences.

While I ultimately did not think that it was a particularly good movie, I had to respect the much-reviled Rocky V and the direction that its narrative took in the context of the franchise as a whole. That film saw Sylvester Stallone's iconic boxing champion not only be forced into retirement following severe physical injuries but also saw him lose his wealthy lifestyle due to bad financial decisions on the part of his manager/best friend. Southpaw takes the same basics of a lower-class boxer turned wealthy champion being made to start from scratch following a sudden tragic development. In this case, the boxer (Jake Gyllenhaal) has an altercation with a disrespectful would-be rival (Miguel Gomez) that inadvertently leads to his wife (Rachel McAdams) being fatally shot in the commotion. This sets in motion a chain of events that sees Gyllenhaal lose not only his many material gains but most importantly his young daughter, who is placed in foster care and understandably wants nothing to do with him. Gyllenhaal's initial notions of violent revenge against Gomez soon pass and eventually lead to him trying to claw his way back up to the top, which involves trying to settle in at a gym run by an especially stern trainer (Forest Whitaker).

I can respect Southpaw to an extent, especially when it comes to Gyllenhaal conveying his character's raw emotion and physicality both inside and outside the ring (even though his tendency to angrily flip over nearby pieces of furniture starts coming across as silly before too long) or Whitaker's turn as a heavily principled and embittered mentor who has his own checkered past. However, the rest of the film doesn't seem to measure up to the strength of either performance. As if the fact that my main reference point for the plot is Rocky V isn't enough of a tip-off, it doesn't quite manage the same level of ultimately misguided experimentation as that Stallone vehicle did. Instead, what we get is a disappointingly sluggish and on-the-nose excuse for a sports drama that sets up simple conflicts and doesn't do anything interesting with them. This even extends to any actual scenes of fighting, which may feature an incredibly ripped Gyllenhaal angrily taking as many names as he can but which ultimately don't leave much impact despite their bloody, frantic nature. A few strong character moments definitely help redeem Southpaw to an extent (especially on Whitaker's part), but it's not enough to sufficiently distinguish the whole film for the better.

2

[Iroquois]

#752 - Mr. Holmes
Bill Condon, 2015

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/mr-holmes-ian-mckellen.jpg

An elderly gentleman who was once a legendary detective retires to a cottage in the countryside finds himself puzzling over the final case he ever worked.

Considering how potentially interesting the prospect of seeing an iconic fictitious character confront their advancing age and impending mortality can be, it's rather disappointing that the most prominent modern examples of such tend to play such a situation for light humour - look no further than a sexagenarian Schwarzenegger declaring himself "old, not obsolete" in Terminator: Genisys or old-school secret agents like James Bond and Ethan Hunt defying their detractors by deftly carrying out all manner of life-threatening missions. Mr. Holmes opts to take a certain much-adapted Arthur Conan Doyle character and examine his experiences during his final years in order to provide a more meditative counter to recent action-packed outings starring the likes of Robert Downey Jr. or Benedict Cumberbatch. It reflects this through an ambitious inter-mingling of three separate narratives. The core narrative sees a now-retired Sherlock Holmes (Ian McKellen) returning to his country home following a recent journey to Japan. As he re-adjusts to life around his cottage, interactions with the lonely son (Milo Parker) of his war-widow housekeeper (Laura Linney) lead to him reflecting on two prior experiences. One concerns the events of his trip to Japan in search of a plant with healing properties, while the other naturally involves his last case that begins when a worried husband (Patrick Kennedy) hires him to investigate the rather peculiar activities of his wife (Hattie Morahan).

Having a renowned actor like McKellen in the role of Holmes certainly lends Mr. Holmes enough gravitas to prevent it from becoming too stuffy even for a British period drama, though he doesn't exactly disappear into the role like other actors tend to do. Other performers vary in ability - Parker proves an adequate child actor who does well enough at acting against a juggernaut like McKellen, while Linney struggles to overcome a dubious Irish accent in order to sell her own conflicted character. Not too much else of note goes on in the acting department save perhaps Hiroyuki Sanada's turn as Holmes's Japanese contact, who gets some weighty enough material to work with even in what is arguably the weakest of the film's three separate storylines. Despite the film's relatively brief length, it still threatens to grow too slow and labourious for its own good as it jumps haphazardly between the separate narratives. It's sprinkled with clever references to canonical Holmes factoids and how McKellen's Holmes regards his famous image with some disdainful amusement (best exemplified by the sequence where he visits a cinema that's playing a film based on his exploits), though that only goes so far in providing any distinction to an otherwise dry combination of mystery and drama.

2.5

[cricket]

I like Paul Dano so Love & Mercy looks interesting.

[Iroquois]

#753 - Creed
Ryan Coogler, 2015

http://www.morbidlyamusing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/creed_2.jpg

The illegitimate son of a legendary boxing champion who died in the ring seeks to become a great boxer in his own right and enlists the help of his father's rival-turned-friend to do so.

2015 has certainly seen quite a few notable ways to extend the longevity of some old franchises beyond the realm of what is likely or even plausible. Jurassic World gave us a fully functional theme park full of live dinosaurs even after all three of its predecessors had already demonstrated why such a concept just wouldn't work, while Terminator: Genisys rewrote the franchise's established time-travel continuity to the point of things just not making any sense anymore in order to accommodate a potential spin-off franchise. Even though Creed does not involve science-fiction like those examples do, it does work off one very unlikely premise in order to connect with a beloved cinematic brand. The story concerns Adonis (Michael B. Jordan), the illegitimate son of late boxing legend Apollo Creed, as he is adopted out of juvenile detention by Creed's widow Mary Ann (Phylicia Rashad). Despite being smart and capable enough to acquire promotions at his vaguely-defined office job during the film's first few scenes, Adonis wants nothing more than to actually become a reputable boxer in his own right. After some initial difficulty finding trainers in his Los Angeles hometown, he eventually decides that he needs to travel to Philadelphia in order to learn under living legend Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone), who is understandably much more concerned with running his restaurant than having anything to do with a boxing ring ever again.

Creed certainly has its work cut out for it as it must try to craft a down-to-earth sports drama that is dependent on referencing the events of a film that featured a robot butler. Even though the Rocky series is a fundamentally goofy one (never mind the original's grounded realism), the fact that Creed tries to take itself seriously ironically ends up being what threatens its success the most. Director Coogler and star Jordan had already collaborated on true-crime dramatisation Fruitvale Station, which was arguably undone by the way in which its incredibly straightforward treatment of its narrative threatened to render the whole film tedious. While Creed is offered some flexibility due to its fictitious nature, it ultimately doesn't do much of worth with such creative freedom. As if the rather eye-rolling nature of the entire first act isn't enough, there's the way in which it falls to prey to that most prominent of reboot flaws, that of trying to deliver far too many references to past installments (except Rocky V, of course, because who cares about a movie where Rocky trains someone else to fight?). There's also the question of Adonis's romantic sub-plot involving his neighbour Bianca (Tessa Thompson), a young up-and-coming musician who is currently dealing with degenerative hearing loss. Such an ostensibly tragic sub-plot seems like a good source of nuance for the film, but even the acting strength of both performers can't adequately justify such weak developments within the context of a main plot that's already crafting a very slow and loose variation on an underdog sport movie.

Though he plays a character who can be a little difficult to side with, Jordan does alright at holding his own both inside and outside the ring. However, there's a lot more to be said for Stallone's latest turn as his most definitive role as Rocky. Considering what both character and actor have been through over the course of the past four decades, one wouldn't necessarily expect much of worth out of a character who had seemingly gotten a satisfactory ending to his saga in 2006's Rocky Balboa and now only exists to prop up an entirely different film. Despite that, Stallone commits well enough to the material that he is capable of carrying some extremely hokey movie-of-the-week developments as the film progresses. Moments such as his customary visits to the graves of his loved ones definitely cancel out more ostensibly ridiculous moments such as his bewildered response to Jordan mentioning the "cloud" method of data storage. Thompson and Rashad are ultimately a bit wasted due to the sidelined natures of their respective narratives, though the former's status as a love interest affords her more material than the latter's status as a concerned parental figure. The development of these characters and many others (including Andre Ward as a potential rival to Adonis's claim to the championship) seems very lacklustre. This much is true of the film's chief antagonist, loutish British boxer "Pretty" Ricky Conlan (Tony Bellew). Conlan not only lacks the charming nuance of original Rocky antagonist Apollo Creed or even Balboa's Mason "The Line" Dixon but also isn't much of a love-to-hate character either, with his confrontational public image only serving to remind one of III's Clubber Lang but without the scenery-chewing villainy that Mr. T's belligerent boxer displayed.

It's a shame, then, because Creed does yield the occasional strong moment amidst its general mediocrity. The stand-out sequence is easily Adonis' first serious pro fight that is captured in a single unbroken take. The camera seems to prowl the ring like a caged lion as it follows not just Adonis but his opponent as they trade blows, attempt to recover between palpably brief rounds, and deal with their coaches spitting words of encouragement at them. However, such ambition is largely absent even on an action front as the film retreats into familiar boxing-movie techniques for its protracted climax. Demonstrations of familiarity are sadly commonplace within the world of Creed as everything from melodramatic conflicts to training montages are either recycled completely or tend to lack interesting variations. It's not enough to totally ruin the film but taking into account how much of it feels like it's padding out the film's rather bloated 133-minute running time (which notably makes it longer than any of the Rocky movies) definitely prevents this film from qualifying as a modern classic. As a result, Creed does just enough to justify its existence and it's definitely watchable but beyond that it's hardly the work of a champion.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#754 - Cop Car
Jon Watts, 2015

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Dff9ob8hP2E/maxresdefault.jpg

A pair of young boys discover an abandoned police cruiser in the woods and take it for a joyride only for the cruiser's corrupt owner to come looking for them.

On the surface, Cop Car seems like another modern throwback to '80s cult cinema with its blunt title and cover art featuring the one and only Kevin Bacon looking so much like a stereotypical small-town sheriff that you'd think he'd just walked off the set of Super Troopers. However, once the lurid red-and-blue opening credits have concluded, the film instead jumps headlong into an incredibly slow and mundane sequence of scenes where two boys (James Freedson-Jackson and Hays Wellford) are wandering through a rural area. After establishing a familiar odd-couple dynamic with Freedson-Jackson as a rebellious troublemaker who is constantly pushing the timid Wellford into a series of escalating dares, the boys eventually discover the eponymous car in the middle of a wooded area and, upon finding a set of keys inside, decide to start driving it around on a lark. However, it's not before Bacon's enigmatic but undoubtedly unhinged sheriff finds out that his car is missing and begins his own relentless search for it.

Cop Car is an extremely lean film and honestly feels a little too lean for its own good. The film does spend much of its time alternating between the kids getting into pretty standard misadventures and Bacon frantically trying to give chase, but the scenes vary in quality. The comedy of seeing Bacon try to steal a car using one of his shoelaces is visually inventive, while watching the kids play with guns and bulletproof vests they find in the car results in some of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I've seen all year. These individual moments pepper an otherwise uninteresting first half; it is only once the boys open the trunk and discover the real reason why the sheriff is obsessed with getting his car back that the film truly kicks into high gear. If nothing else, Watts' ability to craft a consistently suspenseful third act goes a long way towards redeeming the film as a whole but the build-up to that act is perhaps a little too good at reflecting the sheer boredom of being a kid in a small town even in a film as short as this one.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#755 - Die Hard
John McTiernan, 1988

http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/6/79//die-hard-main.jpg

A police officer attends his estranged wife's office Christmas party only for a group of terrorists to take over the building.

There have been enough films that take place at Christmas and invoke a lot of the same tropes and details that Christmas has practically become a genre in and of itself with its own collection of cinematic classics. In keeping with what defines the season for the people that celebrate it, the most well-known Christmas movies tend to consist of predominantly family-friendly tales that tend to invoke a wide variety of holiday conventions, whether it's learning the true value of family in It's A Wonderful Life or one boy's all-consuming wish to receive a BB gun from Santa Claus in A Christmas Story. Of course, after an up-and-coming screenwriter by the name of Shane Black opted to set his action-packed buddy comedy Lethal Weapon during the lead-up to Christmas, the parameters for what could be considered a Christmas movie apparently shifted. As a result, when Die Hard came out the year after Lethal Weapon and also happened to be an action movie that took place during Christmas, it proved such a resonant hit with audiences that even now there are people who not only think that it should be counted as a Christmas movie but also think that it is arguably the best Christmas movie. I obviously don't think it's particularly clever to refer to Die Hard as a Christmas movie but that isn't enough to stop me from forming my own Christmas tradition of watching Die Hard on Christmas Eve.

Considering how much of an influence the basic plot mechanics of Die Hard have had on the past few decades of action cinema, it almost defies the need for explanation, but I'll do it anyway. Die Hard sees New York detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) travel to Los Angeles to attend the office Christmas party being held at the skyscraper headquarters of the corporation that employs his currently-estranged wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia). However, it's not long before an international team of terrorists led by a sophisticated German named Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) launch a complex plan that involves taking all the party guests hostage. Fortunately, McClane is able to escape from the terrorists' clutches; though he is outnumbered and outgunned by his enemies, he still decides to launch his own guerrilla campaign against the terrorists using little more than his wits and whatever resources he can scrounge up as he does his best to keep one step ahead of his enemies. It's a simple plot, but the particulars are handled with surprising levels of efficiency and nuance - the first act provides a veritable cavalcade of pertinent factoids or important character details that will all come into play as the film progresses, which makes the multitude of pay-offs really satisfy. The first scene of the film is the best example of how the tiniest factors can work to define a film for better for worse as McClane's casual conversation with a fellow airline passenger about stress relief ends up playing a surprisingly major part in later high-stakes events - it could have been gratingly obvious but is deftly handled in such a way that doesn't feel that way..

Like many classic pieces of entertainment, what makes Die Hard great is the way in which it takes familiar aspects of storytelling and provides engaging variations upon them. This much is true of the characterisation, where one can pick apart the various archetypes that are deployed but can easily enjoy them because of how well they are done. Willis builds a memorable hero who is flawed and vulnerable enough to carry the film even before any actual danger arises; his complicated interplay with Bedelia sells their characters' marital troubles with ease, especially since the latter gets a bit more development than your typical damsel-in-distress due to the film's vaguely progressive attitudes regarding '80s women. Rickman ends up being the true star here as he takes what could have been a thankless moustache-twirling baddie and adds some serious gravitas to the proceedings, with his coldly professional villain communicating volumes through both his affably eloquent speechifying and his admirably subtle displays of body language. There's also a lot to be said about his clipped Teutonic affectation that is dripping with classy condescension and callous cool as he can deliver even the most absurd dialogue with palpable menace. There's also a lot to be said for his intelligence and motivations, which are both complicated without being convoluted and are aptly reflected in manners great and small; in one instance that stood out to me on this viewing, Hans' plot to identify James Shigeta's Japanese-American executive involves him reciting the man's life story and casually referencing his internment during World War II. It's a small detail that can easily be missed but lends a world of character to a potentially generic villain.

With far too many films, it's easy to write off the entire supporting cast with little more than a straightforward line about "solid performances" or whatnot, but another reason why Die Hard earns its reputation as a modern classic is because it manages to earn a paragraph dedicated to the multitude of supporting characters that grant the film its winning personality. Though the bulk of the terrorists aren't given that much time to distinguish themselves beyond their laughably '80s haircuts and tendency to not speak in English, several of Hans' henchmen manage it just fine; African-American hacker Theo (Clarence Gilyard) proves a delightfully wicked lackey whose frequent wise-cracking does not annoy, while Alexander Godunov makes quite the impression as Karl, Hans' brutish yet oddly elegant right-hand man whose pursuit of McClane soon turns very personal. There are a few easy love-to-hate characters on the "good" side of things, most prominently '80s that-guy Paul Gleason as the deputy police chief whose gross incompetence is supplanted reasonably well by his laughably cranky demeanour. Honourable mentions have to go to William Atherton as an opportunistic television journalist or Hart Bochner as a dangerously overconfident hostage, with the latter getting in a stunning piece of improvised dialogue. There are other good characters in the mix, too; as the affable Sgt. Al Powell, Reginald Veljohnson makes for a lovable foil to McClane whose radio-only connection with the man still comes across as vital despite its inherently artificial nature. Hell, I could even go ahead and bring up Argyle (De'voreaux White) the limo driver as an example of how the film can at least handle its bit-part comic-relief characters well, which is definitely important if you're going to feature comic relief at all.

Of course, it's not like the strength of the plot and characters means that Die Hard can afford to skimp on the actual action. Having the film take place inside a high-rise office building seems to be a somewhat uninspired choice but the level of detail involved in developing Nakatomi Plaza practically makes the building into a character in its own right as its height and contents make it as much of an antagonist as any of McClane's human enemies. Some of the most thrilling segments in the film are definitely based in environmental hazards like McClane (who is instantly established as having a fear of flying) falls or threatens to fall from great heights in attempting to escape his enemies. The same sense of environment is what tends to lend the film's occasional sojourns into straightforward shoot-outs some character, often involving distinctive scenery details ranging from unnecessarily long conference tables on one floor to excessive amounts of glass window-panes on another. That's not to say that the film skimps on flat-out action either with its fair share of massive explosions and bursts of bloodshed scattered ever so carefully throughout the film. All of it is captured with surprisingly distinctive cinematography by future Speed director Jan de Bont - there's something ineffable about the film's grainy compositions and smoothly gliding camerawork.

While one can easily pick apart elements of Die Hard that can be a little problematic (nothing like a team of violent criminals to put your marital strife into perspective), excessive (did McClane really need to desecrate his first victim's corpse with Christmas decorations for the "benefit" of his foes?) or just plain silly (would an elevator really go "ding" before exploding?), it's a testament to the strength of the film that its flaws can be overlooked or at least accepted as part of the fun. Michael Kamen's histrionic score may get a little repetitive but its use of sleigh bells and horns definitely lend the film a lot of character in moments of tension, action, or drama. Countless viewings later, there's still a lot to like about this film - the plethora of characters who have enough charm to overcome their archetypal roles, the mixture of stunts and violence that define the film as an action masterpiece, or even the tightly-structured writing that lends the film quite a lot of replay value. Die Hard plays things amazingly straight and works despite its inherent silliness as an '80s action movie. I've seen more than a few Christmas-themed movies and, despite its relative lack of actual Christmas character (beyond the occasional masterful stroke like the judicious deployment of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" at a plot-critical moment), Die Hard is definitely one that I have gone back to year after year and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future due to its status as a genuine masterwork in action cinema.

5

[cricket]

The best action movie ever, and one of my best moviegoing experiences as I saw it the first two nights it was out.

[Iroquois]

#756 - Spy
Paul Feig, 2015

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vd_lwffL6vo/maxresdefault.jpg

An unassuming CIA office worker is sent into the field to go after an insidious criminal mastermind.

Paul Feig had been responsible for one of my favourite TV shows with short-lived high-school dramedy Freaks and Geeks, but he had failed to impress me on a cinematic level when I saw his break-out film Bridesmaids, which hewed a little too close to the same alienating brand of R-rated romantic comedy popularised by Freaks and Geeks writer Judd Apatow. With Spy, Feig reunites with Bridesmaids actor Melissa McCarthy for a plot that evokes animated spy sitcom Archer in how it not only focuses on the deeds of a debonair gentleman spy (here played by Jude Law) but also on the generic soul-crushing office environment that exists behind the spy's very glamourous scenes. McCarthy plays the office worker who serves as Law's mission control and guides him through his dangerous missions, with her devotion to this extremely thankless role being motivated by her unrequited affection for Law. When Law is killed by a villainous heiress (Rose Byrne) during a mission, a vengeful McCarthy volunteers for the follow-up mission that involves trailing Byrne and bringing her to justice. The CIA boss (Allison Janney) decides to give McCarthy the role on the basis of her surprisingly competent combat skills, but McCarthy still has to face complications provided by good and bad characters alike.

While Spy arguably indulges some transparently accessible (but still R-rated) humour due to having a corpulent, clumsy person like McCarthy in the lead role, I can still appreciate how there are some layers to the comedy on offer here. One can play a drinking game with the sheer number of spoken jokes that can't help but feel like they were culled from a long reel of improvisations (with the most obvious offenders being the ones that start with the phrase "you look like"), but there's something to the rhythm involved on both sides of the camera that makes the barrage of one-liners work in such a way that they'll land more often than not. The film is still fundamentally aware of its parodic nature, even if that does extend to little more than inserting hapless everywomen like McCarthy or her gangly co-worker (Miranda Hart) into all the usual spy-movie set-pieces such as pursuing assassins or gaining the villain's trust using careful subterfuge. McCarthy does prove especially solid - though her initial development as a neurotic doormat doesn't exactly impress, she is still able to convincingly make the leap to outwardly vicious-sounding undercover agent without an issue. There are all sorts of monkey wrenches thrown in to keep things interesting, most prominently Jason Statham as a belligerent agent whose tales of dangerous situations comes close to sounding like a list of Chuck Norris jokes - and that's without mentioning how he constantly threatens McCarthy's operation with his stereotypical rogue agent nonsense. Other actors are given good comedic material, whether it's Byrne as a lovably reprehensible enemy with a masterful capacity for cruel punishments and snobby insults or Peter Serafinowicz as a Eurotrash pervert who just so happens to be one of McCarthy's undercover contacts.

Spy isn't great by any means, but it certainly exceeded my low expectations (if not by much). There are still plenty of ways in which it does play out some rather basic humour in terms of both slapstick or hearing the various broadly-drawn characters interact with one another, but the constant stream of one-liners and farcical scenarios do yield a surprisingly high number of good jokes and I'll definitely admit to getting a few good laughs out of the whole thing. One can appreciate the subtext in this relatively lightweight spy romp without it prompting derisive eye-rolling - of particular note is how McCarthy is forced to adopt multiple unflattering cover identities in what also serves as a clever reference to the film industry's narrow-minded typecasting of actresses like McCarthy. I also appreciate how it's not afraid to get its hands dirty thanks to the freedom offered by an R rating as it invokes scenes of violence ranging from horribly botched assassinations to frantic hand-to-hand fights but manages to avoid coming across as nihilistic bloodshed. Spy doesn't really aim to do much more than give audiences a dependable source of laughs and a small degree of excitement, and I think it delivers well enough to deserve some merit but not enough to totally win me over.

2.5

[Iroquois]

#757 - Christmas Vacation
Jeremiah Chechik, 1989

http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/4879867948.png

A middle-class family man wants to put on the perfect Christmas for his family but is beset by all sorts of obstacles.

I somehow managed to see the other three movies at a young age without seeing [i]Christmas Vacation all the way through, only ever seeing it in bits and pieces throughout the years without ever being sure that I'd seen the whole thing from start to finish. This year, I decided to rectify that. While its two predecessors were road movies at heart that followed the Griswolds' trips across America and Europe respectively, Christmas Vacation keeps its action planted firmly in the family's suburban home; however, it still follows the same basic premise of a family man (Chevy Chase) planning to do whatever it takes to give his family the ideal holiday. Naturally, he is forced to deal with all sorts of complications great and small that threaten to undermine his simple goal; a wide variety of difficult in-laws, a Scrooge-like boss, technical difficulties with the Christmas decorations, and much more.

Even if I hadn't already seen the bulk of the film in snippets over the years, I'd probably still have trouble gleaning any significant levels of amusement even on the basic level on which this film works. That's not to say that there isn't the odd moment here or there that works but they tend to yield quiet mirth rather than raucous laughter, which is something of a problem considering this film's apparently broad and out-sized comedic nature. If anything, the film's best moments tend to make me question just where the line is between a running gag and a flat-out recycled joke - look no further that Chase once again launching into a profane and deranged tirade after his well-intentioned plans come crashing down around his head at the end of the second act (or the distractingly obvious rip-off of the notorious poolside fantasy scene from Fast Times at Ridgemont High). Adding a thick layer of Christmas schmaltz to the proceedings doesn't sweeten the deal much either, especially as certain revelations concerning Chase's white-trash relatives come to light. Christmas Vacation does feature enough half-decent gags to not come across as painfully unfunny but none of them go far enough to stop the film as a whole coming across as a largely laugh-free bore. I do wonder if I would've liked this more had I actually seen it at a younger age, but given how I don't have a high opinion of the other Vacation movies anyway then that's probably unlikely. Oh, well.

2

[Camo]

Not far off 800 Iro :up: great effort. Looking forward to this finishing so i can slowly work my way through it :laugh:.

[Iroquois]

#758 - Avengers: Age of Ultron
Joss Whedon, 2015

http://www.geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2015/03/avengers-age-of-ultron-group-banner.jpg

A team of superheroes must do battle with a malevolent form of artificial intelligence.

Original review found here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=40719).

(Additional notes: well, sh*t.)

2.5

[Iroquois]

Not far off 800 Iro :up: great effort. Looking forward to this finishing so i can slowly work my way through it :laugh:.

Given how I'm intended to wrap this up at the end of the year, I daresay I won't actually reach 800.

[Camo]

Given how I'm intended to wrap this up at the end of the year, I daresay I won't actually reach 800.

I know that but you still made it a decent bit over two movies a day, you and Rhys are the only members i think have completed one of these well unless you fall at the final hurdle :p

[Iroquois]

I couldn't watch too many movies because I'd fall behind on the reviews, which meant that I was deliberately depriving myself of movies for the benefit of this thread and all five people who read it.

[Camo]

I couldn't watch too many movies because I'd fall behind on the reviews, which meant that I was deliberately depriving myself of movies for the benefit of this thread and all five people who read it.

You watched an unbelievable amount tbh. Surprised that was you slowing down.

[Iroquois]

#759 - Point Break
Kathryn Bigelow, 1991

http://insideechenrysbrain.typepad.com/.a/6a00e009983955883301b8d16259d6970c-pi

A rookie FBI agent must go undercover as a surfer in order to track down a gang of bank robbers.

No, this isn't the dire-looking remake that's due to hit cinemas around about now but instead it's Kathryn Bigelow's gloriously early-'90s action masterwork. The plot is quite the variation on the undercover-cop high-concept; it follows a rookie FBI agent (Keanu Reeves) as he is assigned to investigating armed robberies with a half-crazed veteran agent (Gary Busey). Their target is a notorious group of bank robbers known as the "Ex-Presidents" because of their disguises involving rubber masks featuring the likenesses of former U.S. presidents like Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. Since Busey has his own rather outlandish theory that the members of the Ex-Presidents spend their time surfing when they're not pulling heists, he works with Reeves to conduct an undercover operation that involves the latter attempting to infiltrate the local surfing community. This leads to him befriending a tough-talking female surfer (Lori Petty) and eventually ingratiating himself with an affably philosophical adrenaline junkie (Patrick Swayze). This is all the plot that the film really needs as it proceeds to pad out the proceedings with many scenes of extreme sports, cop-movie clichés, machismo-charged exchanges, and the occasional spot of straight-up action.

What could have been an obnoxious mess of a film turns out to be something more in the capable hands of future Oscar-winner Bigelow as she decides to do the material more justice than it arguably deserves. Reeves is frequently criticised for his wooden performances but here it makes perfect sense for a character that not only struggles with his undercover duties but also in convincingly portraying an extreme sports aficionado. Swayze, on the other hand, gets to channel his naturally strong sense of charisma into a character that shouldn't work but does as he combines beach-bum swagger with an earnest air of Zen philosophy. His rough but friendly coolness makes him the ideal foil for Reeves' stilted blank-slate and their chemistry in all sorts of circumstances; you can tell their action-buddy dynamic is strong because of how easily it invites interpretations involving homoerotic subtext (though not to the extent that Top Gun does). Other characters tend to fall by the wayside as a result, whether it's Busey's appropriately bug-eyed fed or Petty's sharp-tongued love interest, but the film wouldn't be what it is without them. Even John C. McGinley popping up as a stereotypical police chief kind of character makes an otherwise thankless role work.

Point Break could have easily coasted on the shallow thrills provided by its extreme-sports angle but Bigelow still manages to bring some panache to the technical proceedings, capturing everything from foot-chases to sky-diving with a kinetic yet coherent combination of techniques. There's a tactile, exciting feeling to the proceedings that helps to compensate for the many foolish ways in which Reeves' undercover agent and his handlers threaten to ruin the operation purely for the sake of providing action. Look no further than the scene where Reeves and Busey are staking out a bank that the Ex-Presidents are about to hit. I figure that it's a testament to the film's extremely silly but substantial amount of charm that it's able to get away with some more ludicrous developments and qualities. It may have plenty of issues, but Point Break manages to work because it not only avoids taking itself too seriously but does so without descending into dull self-awareness and banal comedy. If nothing else, it certainly beats several hells out of Bad Boys II.

3.5

[Iroquois]

#760 - Miracle on 34th Street
George Seaton, 1947

http://www.fact.co.uk/media/55667486/589da9bf-1940-46aa-8b80-f20210e9c6ca.jpg

A kindly old man is hired by Macy's department store to play Santa Claus but things are complicated when he sincerely claims to be the actual Santa Claus.

I already knew the gist of the story of Miracle on 34th Street because I have vague memories of having watched the 1994 remake starring Richard Attenborough as the supposed Santa. Still, I decided that in the spirit of the season I would give the 1947 original a shot. At the very least, it's got an interesting premise that does provide an idealistic outlook on the holiday season despite how easy it was to be cynical about concepts like Christmas or Santa Claus. The film gets started when an elderly gentleman named Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn) discovers that the Santa hired for Macy's Christmas parade has been drinking on the job and so is hired at the last minute by the parade's desperate organiser (Maureen O'Hara). Kringle does very well, which prompts the store to hire him as their in-store Santa. While he proves just as popular as ever, Kringle soon poses problems when his sincerely altruistic actions clash with the executives' profit-minded strategies, and that's before his benign insistence that he is the real Santa threatens to ruin everything.

Despite its saccharine-sounding premise, I admire Miracle on 34th Street for showing some restraint and not going overboard on the sentimentality. It still starts off as a film with a rather cynical outlook towards Christmas, with O'Hara being a single career woman whose business-minded worldview influences her young daughter (Natalie Wood) to know not to believe in Santa. This attitude also leads to friction with a neighbouring attorney (John Payne) who forms a bond with Wood and encourages her to believe in Santa. The film also teases the very real possibility that Kris Kringle really is a delusional old man after all; the fact that there are Macy's staffers who are willing to overlook this for the sake of their business's continued success lends an interesting subtext to the proceedings. However, there's not that much nuance to the proceedings (such as Kringle being evaluated by a psychiatrist who seems to have more psychological problems than every other character in the film) and the film's development into courtroom drama during the third act may make sense from a narrative standpoint but still has some issues with pacing and resolution. Be that as it may, Miracle on 34th Street is still an enjoyable film where the idealism on display does not feel forced or unwarranted and the performances are nicely done. It doesn't quite feel like a classic, but I certainly wouldn't object to watching it again next holiday season.

3

[Derek Vinyard]

Point Break :up::up: nice review iro

[Iroquois]

#761 - It's a Wonderful Life
Frank Capra, 1946

http://travelinlibrarian.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Its-a-Wonderful-Life.jpg

When a humble family man who has sacrificed everything for the sake of his small hometown finds himself contemplating suicide on Christmas Eve, an angel is sent to Earth to help him see the error of his ways.

I think it's been close to a decade since the last (and first) time I saw It's a Wonderful Life, Frank Capra's cinematic fable about the resilience of the human spirit even in the face of seemingly mundane adversity. After a brief prologue frames the story as being told by one celestial being to another on Christmas Eve, the bulk of the film skims the life story of a young man named George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart). George wants nothing more than to get out of his pleasant but unremarkable hometown and have exciting adventures around the world, but a series of badly-timed mishaps constantly force him to shelve his dreams for the greater good. All of them just so happen to involve his father's loan business, which is constantly under threat of being acquired or shut down by a greedy businessman known as Mr. Potter (Lionel Barrymore). George still grows up, gets a job, get married to his high-school sweetheart (Donna Reed), and so forth, but his resentment of never getting to realise his dreams grows and grows and then just happens to hit breaking point one cold and wintry Christmas Eve...

There's not really too much that really needs to be said about It's a Wonderful Life at this point. It's definitely earned its status as a classic thanks to its ability to be sentimental without being totally mawkish thanks to its incredible dark side that bubbles under the film's friendly small-town surface. There's enough palpable nuance to the conflict that it has the potential to undermine the heartwarming humanism of the ending; the film had been famously investigated during the McCarthy witch-hunts over its supposedly pro-communism subtext, but one can still walk away from the film feeling like George's joyful epiphany and acceptance of his destiny has hints of Stockholm syndrome to it. With that in mind, it's a testament to the film's quality that it still feels at least a little emotionally stirring to watch despite one's conscious cynicism. I also have to concede that I do have a soft spot for stories that involve alternate realities, but I still admire how well It's a Wonderful Life goes about spending the bulk of its running time setting up its alternate reality. This much is true considering how well the makers develop this small but immensely detailed town filled to the brim with distinctive characters ranging from co-stars to bit parts. This serves to make the film's iconic third act all the more brilliant to watch as all the pieces fall into place for George. Helping things along is the way in which the performers act with gusto - Barrymore sinks his teeth into what is a fairly straight-forward villainous role, Stewart embodies all manner of emotions in combination with his usual marble-mouthed gosh-and-bother affectation as he begins an unlikely relationship with Reed, who provides a surprisingly believable mix of brashness and timidity. I don't think I'll watch It's a Wonderful Life every Christmas, but it's hard to think of a better example of a pure Christmas film.

4

[Iroquois]

#762 - Entourage
Doug Ellin, 2015

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3lZPbUBQObM/maxresdefault.jpg

A movie star and his friends must confront a series of problems, most of which involve the movie star's incredibly expensive directorial debut.

I never really followed Entourage, HBO's long-running comedy series about an up-and-coming actor trying to make it in the wild world of Hollywood, but I'd certainly seen enough episodes to let me know just what I'd be in for when I watched this big-screen revival. For those who don't know about the show, it follows not only photogenic young actor Vince (Adrian Grenier) but also the members of his "entourage" - best friend/manager "E" (Kevin Connolly), half-brother/aspiring actor Drama (Kevin Dillon), and second-best friend/driver Turtle (Jerry Ferrara) - as they all make the move from Queens to Hollywood and not only become involved in maintaining Vince's high-profile acting career but also trying to strike out on their own lines of work. In the mix is Vince's agent, Ari (Jeremy Piven), an extremely acerbic industry veteran who wants to support Vince but can't stand the members of Vince's entourage (especially would-be rival E). Entourage the movie picks up with Vince, already rich and famous on the basis of his acting career, looking to try his hand at directing a film. The project in question ends up being an adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (simply titled Hyde) that is updated for the modern blockbuster crowd by making its two-faced protagonist into a super-powered nightclub DJ (yes, really). However, when the film starts running over budget with no end in sight, Ari is forced to deal with the wealthy Texan financier (Billy Bob Thornton), who doesn't care about movies in the slightest but still sends his gormless son (Haley Joel Osment) to Hollywood in order to see just what kind of movie his money is financing. That's without getting into the various sub-plots that affect the other members of the main cast...

...which is where the film runs into a serious problem. Despite his partner Sloan (Emmanuelle Chriqui) being heavily pregnant with his child, E still feels compelled to sleep around with random women behind her back regardless of the consequences. In this light, the other sub-plots are marginally more tolerable, such as Drama still trying to get himself acting work (with his small but pivotal role in Hyde under threat by Osment's myopic interference) or Turtle trying to do nothing more than hook up with champion UFC fighter Ronda Rousey (playing herself). In addition to fighting for Vince's creative vision against various rivals, Ari once again has to deal with marital problems and being pestered by former assistant Lloyd (Rex Lee) over the latter's impending marriage. Even for a lightweight comedy, these conflicts tend to feel way too thin to sustain the film and their resolutions still lack any and all substance. Even the solitary laugh I got out of the scene where E's various infidelities catch up to him is undermined by not only its conclusion but its sheer irrelevance to the rest of the film (especially considering how it's resolved about halfway through). The same goes for Turtle's sub-plot involving Rousey, which also ends abruptly and leaves one nonplussed despite the comical level of violence involved in the conclusion. By these standards, the trials of fundamentally pathetic D-list actor Drama provide the film with the closest thing it has to a heart even as he's the only one to suffer serious consequences as a result of pursuing his own sexual appetites.

The frustrating thing about Entourage is how weak its comedy ends up being. Leaving aside the foul-mouthed banter that characters frequently exchange with each other (which would be fine if it had any actual wit to it), there are also the ways in which the film's superficial attempts at satire work. A major draw when it came to Entourage the show was seeing various Hollywood celebrities appear as themselves and have all sorts of comical interactions with the show's characters. Aside from the simplistic romantic elements provided by Rousey and Emily Ratajkowski, this extends to nothing more than one-note cameos that are only vaguely amusing at best, whether it's Liam Neeson gruffly cursing out Ari at a traffic light or Kelsey Grammer angrily storming out of a marriage counselor's office. This leads into another sticking point regarding Vince's film-within-a-film itself, which provides the main thrust of the plot's conflict. There's a scene where Ari sits down to watch a rough cut of Hyde and we the audience see the film's aggressively stylised opening scene; judging by this brief snippet, I honestly can't tell how seriously I'm supposed to be taking the plot here. Am I supposed to personally think that the film is horrendous and be amused at how seriously the characters take it or am I supposed to actually be invested in seeing such an obvious hit movie gets its due success? The fact that it can easily go either way does not suggest clever ambiguity so much as vague emptiness. This also undercuts any tension whatsoever regarding the sub-plot where Osment wants to cut Drama's character out of Hyde completely. Several characters constantly talk about Drama's important role, but the fact that we never get even the slightest detail about what that role actually is (let alone see the man perform it) says everything about Entourage and the fact that it depends on telling its story more so than showing it.

Of course, what Entourage does like to show is the usual scenes of Los Angeles hedonism involving women in various states of undress, crowded parties at beach-side mansions, ingesting all manner of perception-altering substances (deliberately or not), and so forth. Between that, the limp attempts at macho humour, and the poorly-handled jabs at Hollywood culture, it's safe to say that Entourage is quite the pain to watch. This being a comedy, I'll concede that I probably "didn't get it", but from what I can see there's pretty much nothing to "get" whatsoever. The main characters are all different shades of unlikeable and it's difficult to be invested in their struggles on either a sympathetic level or a comedic level. The same lack of coherence affects the plot in ways both great and small - as if the confusion over whether or not the satire works well (if at all) isn't bad enough, the film's jumping around between various weightless sub-plots feels awfully fragmented and stretched-out even for a film that's nothing more than a feature-length TV episode. Regardless of whether or not Hyde is supposed to be a good movie, it'd still be preferable to watching this.

1

[honeykid]

I've never seen an episode of Entourage, but all this sounds exactly as I expected the episodes to be. I honestly couldn't see you liking either.

[Iroquois]

I've never seen an episode of Entourage, but all this sounds exactly as I expected the episodes to be. I honestly couldn't see you liking either.

Eh, there was a copy lying around and, if nothing else, it gives me an easy pick for the worst movie of 2015. Besides, one's personal boundaries do need pushing from time to time.

[Iroquois]

#763 - Aloha
Cameron Crowe, 2015

http://cdn2.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/675x380/2015/05/1Aloha_2_movie_still_h_15.jpg

A defence contractor returns to his home state of Hawaii for work reasons and ends up connecting and re-connecting with various locals.

I already kind of knew what to expect from Cameron Crowe and his particular brand of milquetoast dramedy, which had already left very little in the way of favourable impressions with either Jerry Maguire or Almost Famous (not quite counting Say Anything because I never watched that from start to finish). Even my existing preconceptions couldn't have prepared me for Aloha, a film that starts off in cruise control and goes nowhere fast over the course of a hundred minutes. After beginning with a montage of home movies including footage of growing up in Hawaii mixed in with footage of the space program, the movie proper picks up with a defence contractor (Bradley Cooper) returning to his home state of Hawaii to conduct some business on behalf of a wealthy industrialist (Bill Murray), who is looking to launch a satellite into space with the assistance of the U.S. military. To this end, Cooper is assigned a military escort in the form of a fighter pilot (Emma Stone) who instantly forms a challenging foil for him as they are made to work together. There are also some extra complications, such as him meeting up with an old ex-girlfriend (Rachel McAdams) who has since gotten married to another military man (John Krasinski) and is currently raising a family.

The main crime that Aloha commits above all others is that it's aggressively uninteresting. Sure, it's a little patronising in its treatment of the native population, with the notorious example of this being the fact that the female lead character is a quarter-Hawaiian and quarter-Chinese yet is played by the pale-skinned, blonde-haired, and blue-eyed Stone; while this is arguably justified by the character being proud of her native Hawaiian heritage regardless of her white-passing appearance, this isn't especially obvious until after the fact and just feels like another fundamentally distracting instance of Hollywood whitewashing. The sad thing about Aloha is that this controversy really is the most interesting thing about the movie as Crowe treads familiar ground in his attempt to weave a compelling romantic plot into a greater tale about privatisation, corporate greed, and military accountability. There are some decent performers in the mix, but they struggle to rise above some simplistic characters whose arcs are clearly set out before them and any surprising revelations on either a personal or professional level land with dull thuds.

It's a shame, then, because there are moments that threaten to redeem Aloha. This being a Crowe film, there are naturally some choice tracks on the soundtrack even though the whole thing does threaten to tip too far into bland indie/classic rock for its own good. There's also a halfway-interesting visual aesthetic to the proceedings that infuses otherwise drab scenes with a vague sense of vitality through naturalistic camerawork, adeptly capturing either the lush Hawaiian scenery or intense interpersonal confrontations as necessary. In the context of a fundamentally alienating narrative, there is the odd moment that comes across as interesting, such as one confrontation between Cooper and Krasinski late in the film where both men speak volumes to one another without ever actually saying anything out loud. However, there isn't nearly enough to make the film as a whole work and the result is a fundamentally limp and uninteresting mess that is best avoided.

1

[Iroquois]

#764 - Youth
Paolo Sorrentino, 2015

http://schmoesknow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/YOUTH_International.jpg

Two lifelong friends - one a retired British composer, the other a veteran American film-maker - must deal with their many problems while on holiday at a Swiss mountain resort.

It's an admittedly boring-sounding premise, that of a two-hour film about a pair of old white geezers puttering about the grounds of some exotic European locale grumbling about how old and useless they are, but in the hands of such impressive talent on both sides of the camera it manages to work. Having said old geezers be none other than Michael Caine and Harvey Keitel certainly sweetens the deal, as does the fact that they both become the separate beating hearts of a solid acting ensemble and embody different aspects of what the film is trying to depict. While both characters are superficially similar, they couldn't be any more different at heart. Caine plays an eminent British composer and conductor who is trying to enjoy his annual holiday at a Swiss mountain resort but is constantly being pestered to return to his native Britain in order to conduct a performance of his most famous composition (which he naturally refuses to do for reasons that soon become clear). In his role as a renowned film director, Keitel acts as quite the disagreeable foil to Caine despite their respective characters' decades-long friendship; while Caine is content to spend his final years resting on his laurels, Keitel is busy at work crafting his latest film, which will apparently serve as a "testament" to his already-respectable career. They are just a couple of guests at this hotel, whose other prominent guests include a young actor (Paul Dano) preparing for his next role or Caine's daughter/assistant (Rachel Weisz) who has come to the same resort not only to help Caine handle his affairs but also to cope with being separated from her husband, who just so happens to be Keitel's son.

There are definitely some talented performers on display here. Two-time Oscar-winner Caine definitely demonstrates his most impressive performance in years as the recalcitrant maestro who steadfastly sticks to his principles regardless of whether or not it makes any significant difference in the grand scheme of things, showing some serious heart underneath his crusty exterior. The gruffly charismatic Keitel throws himself into a character who does not conjure any serious associations with particular filmmakers as both he and his team of collaborators struggle to come up with the perfect storyline and ending for his supposedly definitive next film. Caine and Keitel do have some impressive chemistry in their scenes, even if they are frequently engaging in superficially banal discussions ranging in topic from their urinary dysfunctions to their perpetual wagers on the behaviours of fellow guests. Dano once again demonstrates a solid performance despite his comically baby-faced exterior and extremely familiar arc as he plays an actor who yearns to distinguish himself as a serious artist despite his best-known role being one in a generic crowd-pleaser; the revelation of the role that he's been trying to immerse himself in serves as the darkest chuckle in a film that's full of them. In the same sense, Weisz proves a performer that's greater than the sum of her character's parts as she manages to carry quite the complicated role as her attempts to cajole Caine into following up on his various obligations is less about reminding her boss of his appointments and more about encouraging her father to do more with his increasingly limited lifespan. This does yield some good moments (such as her character's lengthy and tearful monologue directed at Caine halfway through the film), though it has to in order to compensate for her more banal-sounding narrative as a maudlin divorcee who is approached by one of the hotel's other guests.

It'd be one thing if Sorrentino just sought to capture everything in as straightforward a manner as possible with only the slightest service to either the comedy or the visuals, but fortunately that is not the case. Everything from drawn-out long-shots of people going about their daily business to flashy music-video parodies is infused with creativity of both a sonic and visual nature. This extends to various sequences that are lent impressive levels of nuance due to clever choices of background music or patient camera movements - look no further than the entire sequence playing out to the gentle crescendos of Godspeed You! Black Emperor's "Storm", for instance (the fact that the film dares to cut the song off before it finishes is easily its biggest mistake). These stylistic choices complement rather than distract from the many conflicts at the heart of the film, with all the most serious parts of the film being lent the same careful structuring that knows not to distract from the importance of what's actually happening. Prominent examples include Caine passionately explaining his constant refusal to perform another concert or the most important part of Keitel's character's arc (which I honestly want to keep as vague as possible because of its impact and involvement of a certain Oscar-winning actress). In short, Youth may be just the kind of darkly comic meditation on the aging process that it appears to be on the surface, but there is plenty of depth to it in terms of both narrative and artistic complexity that it more than makes up for its superficial familiarity.

4

[Iroquois]

#765 - Gremlins 2: The New Batch
Joe Dante, 1990

http://cdn.idigitaltimes.com/sites/idigitaltimes.com/files/2015/08/28/gremlins-2.jpg

A young couple starts working in a high-tech New York skyscraper only for a species of maniacal reptilian creatures to start causing havoc inside.

I do tend to cast a skeptical eye on any sequel that tries to compensate for its inherently derivative nature by throwing as many ideas at the wall as possible in order to see which ones will stick, especially when it opts to change up a lot of the original film's fundamental qualities. By this logic, Gremlins 2: The New Batch has already failed by opting to shift the action from the idyllic Capra-style small town of Kingston Falls in favour of the big smoke of New York City. Not only that, but it opts to replace that same familiar small-town vibe with a grotesque parody of 1980s yuppie culture by having the film take place inside an unnecessarily high-tech skyscraper belonging to a conglomerate that has many conflicting interests taking place inside the same building. It is inside this mess that the heroes of the first movie (Zach Galligan and Phoebe Cates) find work as both a concept artist and tour guide respectively, hoping to distance themselves from the trauma associated with the first film. However, thanks to a grimly serendipitous series of events things soon get to the point where a nightmare full of Mogwai and Gremlins becomes very real very quickly and, well, you know the rest...

...or do you? While the original Gremlins was admittedly a little constrained by the gee-whiz Christmas parody it was going for, the creative freedom offered by a shift to the big city is definitely put to good use. So much of the movie feels like a conscious decision to take the already-silly concept of homicidally mischievous reptiles with a clearly established set of rules and push it to its logical extreme, so this naturally involves concepts as ludicrous as a genetics lab (run by Christopher Lee and the twins from Terminator 2, no less) within the walls of a generic corporate building or the kind of obstructively useless yet ironically cheerful technology you'd expect to see in Terry Gilliam's Brazil (though this is arguably an exaggeration of the many worthless inventions made by the main character's dad in the original film, too). This makes for the ideal environment for the Gremlins to run amok, and their constant attempts to find new ways to cause havoc definitely lead to some incredible moments (with the most infamous example arguably being the moment where they find a way to stop the movie completely...) Fortunately, the effects on display are competent enough to carry out Dante's eclectic vision that opts to skewer the most toxic aspects of yuppie culture just as effectively as he poked vicious fun at small-town tropes in the original film.

Gremlins 2: The New Batch may not necessarily yield that much when it comes to laughs but it definitely exhibits a rather canny knowledge of how best to escalate a sequel to a hit film. This is a tricky process to get right as the results can just as easily yield unimpressed reactions as favourable ones (if not more of the former) but I definitely feel like this one more than lives up to its predecessor. By starting off on an already surreal note in its absurdist treatment of everything from Wall Street to cable TV, it proves more than capable of executing a constantly escalating series of misadventures that result in all sorts of improbable shenanigans. In this context, even the inevitable bout of self-awareness involving various extras jokingly discussing the rules surrounding the Gremlins does little to undermine the overall film. It's not what you'd call high art, but it's quite capable of demonstrating just how much potential there is in such a fundamentally goofy B-movie franchise. The lunacy on display is enough to make me understand why there was never a Gremlins 3, and if the proposed reboot actually does go ahead then it's more than got its work cut out for it trying to match the madness of this one.

3

[Iroquois]

#766 - The Gift
Joel Edgerton, 2015

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Gift-Movie-2015-Joel-Edgerton-Gordo.jpg

A married couple move into a new home only for a mysterious man from the husband's past to arrive and start insinuating himself into the couple's lives.

The Gift starts promisingly enough by introducing an up-and-coming businessman (Jason Bateman) and his wife (Rebecca Hall) as they intend to move into a new house in order to start a new life. While out shopping one day, they encounter a stranger (Joel Edgerton) who knew Bateman from when they attended the same school. The couple invites Edgerton over for a polite (if rather awkward) dinner and think that's the end of it. Edgerton thinks otherwise and soon starts leaving wrapped gifts on their doorstep and dropping by to say hello, which naturally starts to cause some tension for Bateman and Hall. Bateman is quick to let his resentment bubble to his otherwise placid surface, while Hall regards Edgerton as little more than an eccentric curiosity. However, as time wears on and their encounters with Edgerton steadily become more uncomfortable, Bateman and Hall start to realise that there's more going on with Edgerton than meets the eye and soon come to regard his continued presence as a serious threat.

There are some promising qualities at work in The Gift. Bateman is a stand-out as he channels the same combination of smarmy sarcasm and oblivious self-importance that defined his iconic role as beleaguered executive Michael Bluth in cult sitcom Arrested Development; here, the same qualities that were originally played for laughs become grim evidence for his character's horribly flawed nature. Hall holds her own as a woman who intends to treat Edgerton with significantly more compassion than Bateman but finds herself challenged not only by Edgerton's increasingly creepy gestures but also by how they lead to unnerving revelations about the man she loves. Edgerton's appearances are decidedly infrequent but he manages to prove a decent enough antagonist who is unassuming enough in his oddball manner to lend some credibility to the possibility that he might not be the true villain of the piece. The interplay between the three leads is okay as it starts at a level of mild and somewhat insincere pleasantry before dissolving and being replaced with paranoid mind-games that are almost entirely perpetrated by Bateman and Edgerton, with Hall either being targeted by them directly or getting caught in the crossfire.

However, even that level of characterisation and performance isn't enough to redeem The Gift in its entirety. Despite the impressive amounts of hype that the film earned and the ways in which it was touted as a film where it was better to know as little as possible before viewing, I was extremely disappointed with the final product. The performances may be decent, but they're in service to a film that struggles with consistency. It spends so long setting up a slow-burning sense of unease in its first half that the gradual revealing of Edgerton's motives and the fallout from the characters' actions during the second half can't help but feel a little rushed and incongruous. Edgerton may be making his directorial debut and he handles the technical side of things well enough even on a relatively low budget, but even with his experience as a screenwriter he should have been able to craft a thriller that wasn't so dependent on easy sensationalism in order to leave an impression. As a result, what starts off as a careful exercise in restraint becomes a trite mishmash by the time the credits roll and the acclaim that it's earned definitely baffles me a little.

2

[cricket]

Congrats Iro at getting through the entire year with this thread. I couldn't imagine watching that many movies, but to review all of them too is simply amazing, and shows great dedication. It has been the best thread I've ever seen, and there should be a Mofie in your future.:)

[Iroquois]

Congrats Iro at getting through the entire year with this thread. I couldn't imagine watching that many movies, but to review all of them too is simply amazing, and shows great dedication. It has been the best thread I've ever seen, and there should be a Mofie in your future.:)

I'm not done yet.

[cricket]

Holy crap

[Iroquois]

Yeah, I still have about six more movies left to review.

[TheUsualSuspect]

It's 2016...give it a rest.

[Iroquois]

It's 2016...give it a rest.

You're just jealous.

[Iroquois]

#767 - Joy
David O. Russell, 2015

http://s1.dmcdn.net/MTASX/1280x720-9K3.jpg

In the 1970s, a divorced mother of two plans to support her dysfunctional family by inventing and selling a technologically superior mop.

Like David O. Russell's previous film, the 2013 con-artist comedy American Hustle, Joy is a loose cinematic adaptation of a true story that admits how much creative licence it takes at the beginning with a title card that says it was "inspired by true stories of daring women". The woman in question is the eponymous Joy (Jennifer Lawrence), who begins the film as a divorcee and single mother who is living out of a rather cramped house with not only her two children but also her mother (Virginia Madsen), father (Robert de Niro), grandmother (Diane Ladd), and ex-husband (Edgar Ramirez). Desperate to support the many members of her family, Joy soon resorts to tapping into her unappreciated talent for inventing things; after an unpleasant experience involving the cleaning up of spilled wine and broken glass, she decides to work on designing a more efficient mop, but the events of this film definitely prove that invention is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration...

Russell's last few films have covered subjects ranging from boxers to mental patients to scam artists but they have all been connected not just by the same loose stable of actors but also a lot of the same thematic preconceptions, such as how all of them involve dysfunctional families that prove just as much of a threat to the protagonists' success as any actual antagonists. Joy is no different in that regard but it may have bitten off more than it can chew when it comes to its subject matter. Just because the plot revolves around a concept as fundamentally mundane as that of a woman launching a career by making a mop doesn't mean that it couldn't have yielded a potentially fascinating film. Unfortunately, that's not the case here as it runs through a very dry story with very little in the way of favourable distinctions. While Lawrence plays a character who is a lot less outwardly obnoxious here than in previous collaborations with Russell, this isn't much of an improvement as she aims for savvy understatement and grace under pressure but instead feels awfully flat and gives off the impression of going through the motions.

The supporting cast doesn't fare much better; de Niro plays an eccentric working-class father that's no different from his character in Silver Linings Playbook (with his quirk here being his perfectionist romanticism instead of an obsession with the NFL), while Madsen is unrecognisable (for better or worse) as Joy's neurotic television-addicted mother. Ladd not only serves as Joy's kindly grandmother but also delivers seemingly omniscient narration from her character's perspective, creating a rather treacly performance in the process, while Ramirez leaves next to no impression despite his character's emotionally charged nature that can and does alternate between passionate diatribes and subtle emoting (and that's without mentioning Dascha Polanco doing her best in the one-dimensional role of Joy's best friend). Russell regular Bradley Cooper appears as an executive in charge of a home-shopping television channel, though even his strengths as a handsome smooth-talker aren't enough to help him provide either a well-rounded individual character or a good foil for Joy. The performance that leaves the most favourable impression is arguably Isabella Rosselini, who delivers a tempestuous but complicated performance as a wealthy widow who provides the capital for Joy's venture.

Another thing that stood out to me about Joy was how much the film seems to draw attention to its own lack of style or personality to the point where I do wonder if it was by design. The film begins with footage of a period-appropriate soap-opera being filmed complete with garish art direction, trite dialogue, and overwrought yet stilted performances; throughout the film, there are plenty of scenes where a soap opera is playing in the background (and, in at least one scene, becomes the setting of Joy's nightmares). The generally overblown and blatantly artificial nature of the soap operas may serve as amusing kitsch on the surface but it also serves to expose holes in how the film proper treats its subject matter; though Joy may be a prestigious drama crafted by an Oscar-nominated filmmaker and starring an ensemble of talented actors, there are plenty of instances where it feels far too similar to the glitzy televised melodrama playing out in the background for its own good. Duplicitous allies, drastic set-backs, unexpected tragedies...the list goes on. Several scenes seem to be structured like the episodic cliff-hangers that are a staple of serialised soaps; while such a statement should imply that the scenes in question provide tension and anticipation, the film as a whole ultimately results in neither due to a sheer lack of surprises.

At times, Joy feels like it could pass for a parody of itself and other supposedly unconventional Hollywood biopics. In trying to stay grounded in the outwardly mundane but inwardly significant events surrounding the formation of a small business based around a cleaning product, Joy feels like it might pull off the same feat as its protagonist and become something more than what people expect it to be. Unfortunately, the resulting film is an incredibly drab excuse for an ensemble drama where Russell provides some seriously diminished returns on the same qualities that made his earlier films so acclaimed and successful. His relatively unorthodox approach to genres ranging from sports drama to romantic comedy fails to make a significantly positive difference to this rags-to-riches biopic and in fact only threatens to make it just as boring as its premise may suggest. There may be talented actors in the mix but they are wasted on some very flat characters and fail to generate much in the way of interest; though Lawrence does get to play a more understandably sympathetic character than in her previous collaborations with Russell, it comes at the cost of making her a virtual cipher in terms of definition or nuance. Despite the film's plot being driven by the concept of innovation in the face of adversity, the film itself is almost entirely lacking in innovation and feels like as much of a chore as actual mopping.

1.5

[Zotis]

I get the feeling Joy is just the same group of celebs trying to make more money.

[Iroquois]

David O. Russell's attempts at Oscar-bait just get more and more transparent with each passing year.

[honeykid]

father (Robert de Niro), grandmother (Diane Ladd),

Ah, Hollywood. :D Nice to see that grandma is a whole eight years older than dad.

[Daniel M]

Agree with you on both The Gift and Joy, probably the two most disappointing 2015 films for me.

Edit: maybe not disappointing, I didn't expect much, especially with Joy after I some reviews I saw.

[Iroquois]

Ah, Hollywood. :D Nice to see that grandma is a whole eight years older than dad.

And I thought the fact that the woman who played Tony Montana's mum in Scarface was only four years older than Pacino himself was bad.

[Iroquois]

#768 - The Final Girls
Todd Strass-Schulson, 2015

http://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/TheFinalGirls_0.png

A handful of college students attend a theatrical screening of a cult slasher movie only to be magically transported inside the movie.

Trying to come up with inventive parodies of the horror genre is a tough racket in an era full of constantly-shifting perceptions of humour and irony, so it's perhaps no surprise that The Final Girls just resorts to playing things straight underneath its outwardly comical premise. After a prologue introduces us to the young heroine (Taissa Farmiga) and her actress mother (Malin Akerman) before the latter dies in a horrific car accident, the film skips ahead a few years. Farmiga is now a college student struggling with homework who reluctantly agrees to attend a theatrical screening of Camp Bloodbath, a Friday the 13th-like slasher movie that also happened to star her late mother as one of the killer's bubble-headed victims. However, when a series of coincidences causes the theatre to catch fire, Farmiga and her ragtag handful of friends - sassy best friend (Alia Shawkat), Shawkat's gawky step-brother (Thomas Middleditch), handsome guy friend (Alexander Ludwig), and bitchy ex-friend (Nina Dobrev) - try to escape by cutting their way through the movie screen and find themselves transported inside the world of Camp Bloodbath itself. They eventually clue into the fact that their only way out of the movie is to see it play through to the very end, which becomes a problem when Farmiga wants to save Akerman from the machete-wielding murderer even though, inside the world of Camp Bloodbath, Akerman is actually playing her movie-within-a-movie character instead of Farmiga's mother.

The Final Girls certainly has a decent enough angle on making fun of horror, but that's not its whole purpose for being. The through-line is definitely Farmiga's character learning to accept her mother's death, especially by going through a serious trial by fire as she does what she can to help protect movie-Akerman from harm even through it threatens to jeopardise the gang's plan to escape the movie. That lends heart to an admittedly standard procession of "trapped-in-the-movie" gags such as visible inter-titles or Groundhog Day loops where the real characters are made to repeat certain scenes until they play along with the plot. At the very least, it knows better than to try playing up the horror aspects, avoiding excessively gory violence or trying too hard to be scary. It also gets a lot of mileage out of the culture clash as the sharp-witted millennials butt intellectual heads with badly-written characters that include casually homophobic jocks and vapidly promiscuous airheads. While there's some degree of cleverness to the film's various gags, it's probably not a good sign that the strongest laughs I got were out of the film's post-credits gag reel than anything in the film proper. I do have to wonder if including said gag reel was the filmmakers' way of hedging their bets if the comedy featured in the film proper didn't pan out.

The performers may not be all that great, but seeing as they do have to play up two different but similar sets of horror stereotypes, they don't really have to pull off anything too difficult. Farmiga is a flat but personable lead and she has good chemistry with both of Akerman's characters, who gets to demonstrate a layer of nuance underneath her giggly blonde exterior as she gets to play a fictional character who has an existential crisis over their true nature. Middleditch proves the outright funniest member of the cast as the socially inept know-it-all, yet he isn't given much screen-time in the grand scheme of things. Ludwig doesn't do much more than play a fairly flat love interest, while Shawkat and Dobrev get to round out the main cast as constantly snarking sidekicks. There's not much to be said for the members of the Camp Bloodbath cast, though Adam DeVine doesn't do too badly as the deliberately obnoxious token jock. The Final Girls also has a striking visual style that involves the colours being heavily saturated and making some decent effects work really pop out in the process. Throw in some chaotic Raimi-style camerawork and some effective use of cheesy '80s pop (especially some surprisingly poignant use of "Bette Davis Eyes") and you have a film that may not be all that funny but is still a pleasant little affair that doesn't totally outstay its welcome.

3

[Iroquois]

#769 - Red Hill
Patrick Hughes, 2010

http://d2bb539iea723j.cloudfront.net/image/13_RedHill.jpg

A young constable transfers to a small country town at the same time that a murderous convict breaks free to take his revenge on the local police force.

Going on the basis of its plot alone, Red Hill isn't going to win points for originality even if it does win them for brevity. A young city-dweller (Ryan Kwanten) and his pregnant wife (Claire van der Boom) move to the eponymous small town in order to live a less stressful life than they would have in the big smoke. However, despite Red Hill's sleepy exterior resulting in the local police becoming extremely docile as a result, it turns out that Kwanten has moved in at the worst possible time. Just after he starts working, a convicted murderer (Tom E. Lewis) escapes from prison and starts making his way back towards Red Hill. The chief (Steve Bisley) naturally musters any deputies and allies that he can in order to bring Lewis down. It's pretty familiar when all is said and done and the story doesn't take any especially surprising turns as it progresses. The performers don't fare much better as a result; Kwanten is something of a blank slate as your typical honest cop with a family, while Bisley can only bring so much crusty personality to yet another gruff sheriff (which also speaks for just about every one who serves under him). By these standards, Lewis's turn as a silent, disfigured killer who slowly and methodically takes his vengeance on those who wronged him is one of the better ones as he fills each frame he appears in with palpable menace.

Despite being a bit lacking in terms of both plot and characterisation, Red Hill is at least able to provide a half-decent film to compensate for its narrative weaknesses. The outback scenery definitely looks a treat, while the small town makes for a good setting for shadowy showdowns and destructive rampages. The grittiness of the camerawork definitely aids the film's tale of vengeance and infuses everything from barely-lit streets to claustrophobic air vents with a sense of realism. The technical aptitude definitely extends to what could arguably pass for action, which makes good use of simple effects in conveying some straightforward acts of violence. Red Hill is far from essential but it's not that bad a watch. It's not trying to be especially deep or innovative, but it gets the job done just fine and without major complaint. Unfortunately, there's not nearly enough personality or skill on display to make it stand out as anything more than just a competently-made B-movie that can be watched once and then forgotten.

2

[Zotis]

Just out of curiosity, why do you watch so many movies that you end up not even liking?

[Iroquois]

Just out of curiosity, why do you watch so many movies that you end up not even liking?

I'm an optimist.

[Camo]

I'm an optimist.

Also how are you supposed to know in advance whether you'll like them or not/

[Camo]

Think i liked The Gift a bit more than you, but i was also dissapointed by it.