Once upon a time there was a writer and director named John Hughes. You might not recognise the name but you have certainly seen his films, especially if you grew up in the 80's. This was an era when family films meant something other than Spy Kids 15 or another animated movie. This meant cleverly observed, witty and touching films that had something for everyone. If you haven't seen Home Alone, Beethoven or Curly Sue then where have you been? If you were a little older the maybe you have seen his classic coming of age films such as Pretty in Pink, The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Uncle Buck combines some of the best elements of both these type of films to give us another John Hughes classic.
John Candy plays Buck. He drinks, smokes, gambles, and avoids all responsibility. He is the last man you would want to leave in charge of your 3 kids, but that’s just what brother Bob must do when his father in-law has a heart attack. This is your typical fish out of water comedy with an edge. The edge being John Candy's fantastic performance as a bull of a man, charging into the lives of teenage daughter Tia (Jean Louisa Kelly) and kindergarten munchkins Maizy (Gaby Hoffman) and Miles (Macaulay Culkin). Candy brings Buck to life with his charisma, so much that I think every kid that saw this really wanted a babysitter like Buck! Who wouldn't want to have birthday pancakes so big they have to be flipped by a snow shovel?
I fell in love with this film all over again. Hughes allows just the right amount of adult humour in as Buck struggles to come to terms with his new responsibility. He reassures his stuffy sister-in law "I've given up smoking up cigarettes, I'm onto cigars now" and struggles with the washing machine "I'm gonna stuff my load into you!" Much of the humour comes from Buck trying to find his feet in world so alien to a serial bachelor, but there is some great support from the kids.
Tia is the sulky teenager who could have been the role model for so many high school girls who thought their parents had no other purpose but to ruin their lives. Let’s just say Tia's brooding angst got a wry smile or two of recognition from my fiancé! Macaulay Culkin is also at his cutest here, grilling Buck with 20 questions in a scene which could have been his audition for Home Alone.
It really got me thinking that family movies like this are a thing of the past. The crazy outfits worn by Tia's friends, berets and huge sunglasses, waistcoats and spray on jeans remind us that this film was certainly made in a time long gone. The humour and truth found in films like Uncle Buck is sadly missing from a lot of the bland modern money spinners made today. Just as Buck breezes in and brings a little cheer to his in-laws lives so did Hughes' films to a lot of people in their day. Will we ever see the likes of John Hughes and John Candy again?
7/10
Wednesday 31 August 2011
Monday 29 August 2011
Hot Fuzz (2007)
I'm not going to beat about the bush here. I loved this film. I am Nick Frost's character Danny Butterman you see, well maybe a small part of him. The bored film geek who sits about waiting for something to happen. Sorry, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here. Hot Fuzz is a comedy starring Simon Pegg as super cop Nick Angel who is reassigned from the Met where he single handedly decimates London's criminal population with his hardcore determination and all round greatness as a crime fighting machine. He is promoted to sergeant and sent to his new patch, sleepy Gloucestershire village Sandford.
Here he meets up with some fantastically stereotyped locals and best of all, his hapless new partner Danny. Hot Fuzz is basically a satire of glossy Hollywood action movies. It fuses the high octane style so often used in big budget movies with a brilliantly British tale of shady goings on in a sleepy country village. The director (Edgar Wright) often plays on the contrast, using many staples straight out of the action movie handbook, such as loud explosions, screaming sirens and shotgun cutting to unfold the action. As Angel is deployed to the village for example his journey from the Met to a rainy train station is punctuated with this shotgun style of scene cutting, ending with him dripping wet at the station clutching his pot plant. As a bit of a film geek this kind of playfulness couldn't fail to make me smile.
The village's often surreal characters also really add to the likeableness. We have, among too many to recount in full, a pompous thespian, drunken tycoon, zealous neighbourhood watch members and a station full of useless police men. Perhaps most notable of all is Timothy Dalton's (yes James Bond!) slimy convenience store owner. Aside from Danny this is probably my favourite character as he often turns up at just the right time with a Cheshire cat grin and a cheesy one liner (Arrest me I'm a slasher... of prices!). And then we have Danny. Nick Frost is often hysterical as the heavy drinking, lazy, daydreaming foil to Simon Pegg's straight man.
The action film world is cleverly explored through Danny's constant questioning of his partner. "Have you ever jumped through the air while firing two guns? Have you ever jumped through the air while firing one gun?" As the story progresses our two heroes finally get a chance to perform all these testosterone filled sequences that Danny has fantasised over. Perhaps most notably is one scene from Point Break that is surely the closest Keanu Reeves has ever been to acting! The genius of Hot Fuzz is to contrast the big budget action movie stereotypes with the sleepy English village stereotypes, giving us a really enjoyable and cleverly observed satire of both worlds.
My only real criticism is that this perhaps drags on for about 20 minutes too long. I felt like Pegg and Frost were the film geeks indulging in their chance to be action heroes more so than their actual characters would have done. But I have to forgive them for that; I would have done exactly the same thing given the chance!
8/10
Here he meets up with some fantastically stereotyped locals and best of all, his hapless new partner Danny. Hot Fuzz is basically a satire of glossy Hollywood action movies. It fuses the high octane style so often used in big budget movies with a brilliantly British tale of shady goings on in a sleepy country village. The director (Edgar Wright) often plays on the contrast, using many staples straight out of the action movie handbook, such as loud explosions, screaming sirens and shotgun cutting to unfold the action. As Angel is deployed to the village for example his journey from the Met to a rainy train station is punctuated with this shotgun style of scene cutting, ending with him dripping wet at the station clutching his pot plant. As a bit of a film geek this kind of playfulness couldn't fail to make me smile.
The village's often surreal characters also really add to the likeableness. We have, among too many to recount in full, a pompous thespian, drunken tycoon, zealous neighbourhood watch members and a station full of useless police men. Perhaps most notable of all is Timothy Dalton's (yes James Bond!) slimy convenience store owner. Aside from Danny this is probably my favourite character as he often turns up at just the right time with a Cheshire cat grin and a cheesy one liner (Arrest me I'm a slasher... of prices!). And then we have Danny. Nick Frost is often hysterical as the heavy drinking, lazy, daydreaming foil to Simon Pegg's straight man.
The action film world is cleverly explored through Danny's constant questioning of his partner. "Have you ever jumped through the air while firing two guns? Have you ever jumped through the air while firing one gun?" As the story progresses our two heroes finally get a chance to perform all these testosterone filled sequences that Danny has fantasised over. Perhaps most notably is one scene from Point Break that is surely the closest Keanu Reeves has ever been to acting! The genius of Hot Fuzz is to contrast the big budget action movie stereotypes with the sleepy English village stereotypes, giving us a really enjoyable and cleverly observed satire of both worlds.
My only real criticism is that this perhaps drags on for about 20 minutes too long. I felt like Pegg and Frost were the film geeks indulging in their chance to be action heroes more so than their actual characters would have done. But I have to forgive them for that; I would have done exactly the same thing given the chance!
8/10
Bad Education (2004)
Have you ever watched a film based on the three sentence description written in a TV guide? If you have then maybe you know just how misleading they can be. I seem to remember reading that this was a tale of two characters troubled school days. That, in conjunction with the name made me think I was in for a kind of Spanish language version of Boyz in the Hood (yes it is another subtitled film). How wrong could I be! Maybe I should have known more about the director, Pedro Almodovar and his fondness for exploring taboo subjects and sexual identity. Maybe I should have not just been an assumptive ass. Regardless, this film surprised me on several occasions.
The plot is almost as confusing as the main characters themselves. Struggling actor Angel (Gael Garcia Bernal) visits childhood friend and successful director Enrique (Fele Martinez) looking for work. Angel leaves him with a script that tells the story of two young boy’s love affair at a repressive Catholic boarding school, an abusive priest and their strange reunion many years later. This script touches a nerve with Enrique and life seems to imitate the script as the actor and director’s stories also begin to unfold.
I found the story oddly gripping as it cuts from the present day to the script of Angel's story, which is itself split over two time periods. Essentially we have 3 narratives to negotiate, which are clouded more by the question mark that emerges over Angel's true identity. Also did I mention that Angel was a transsexual? The film constantly plays with identity, whether it is sexual or literal, it all builds to an engrossing tale made vivid by the beautiful cinematography of Almodovar. Despite there being some very dark themes, mainly involving the church, the film is shot in dazzling colour. It skips seamlessly between the reality and the fictitious, keeping the viewers attention as you try to unravel the threads.
I should probably point out here that if you are put off by a bit of male nudity then you should probably skip this one. If you are going to be offended by a transvestite giving head to a nearly unconscious man while her partner in crime is about to steal his motorbike then stay away! If you are not bothered by such things then there is a lot to enjoy about this film. There is a lot more here than originally meets the eye. Layered, dark, melancholy, beautiful and tragic all at once this could leave you as confused as the main characters but exhilarated nonetheless.
7/10
The plot is almost as confusing as the main characters themselves. Struggling actor Angel (Gael Garcia Bernal) visits childhood friend and successful director Enrique (Fele Martinez) looking for work. Angel leaves him with a script that tells the story of two young boy’s love affair at a repressive Catholic boarding school, an abusive priest and their strange reunion many years later. This script touches a nerve with Enrique and life seems to imitate the script as the actor and director’s stories also begin to unfold.
I found the story oddly gripping as it cuts from the present day to the script of Angel's story, which is itself split over two time periods. Essentially we have 3 narratives to negotiate, which are clouded more by the question mark that emerges over Angel's true identity. Also did I mention that Angel was a transsexual? The film constantly plays with identity, whether it is sexual or literal, it all builds to an engrossing tale made vivid by the beautiful cinematography of Almodovar. Despite there being some very dark themes, mainly involving the church, the film is shot in dazzling colour. It skips seamlessly between the reality and the fictitious, keeping the viewers attention as you try to unravel the threads.
I should probably point out here that if you are put off by a bit of male nudity then you should probably skip this one. If you are going to be offended by a transvestite giving head to a nearly unconscious man while her partner in crime is about to steal his motorbike then stay away! If you are not bothered by such things then there is a lot to enjoy about this film. There is a lot more here than originally meets the eye. Layered, dark, melancholy, beautiful and tragic all at once this could leave you as confused as the main characters but exhilarated nonetheless.
7/10
The Birds (1963)
The Birds is one of Alfred Hitchcock's more famous films. Not perhaps as well known as Psycho or Vertigo, but its basic plot is known by most people it seems. Crazy birds attack people. Hitchcock is famous for being the master of suspense and horror and this is another of those films. I feel that I have to watch a lot of 'classic' films during my one year mission to watch a film a day, and it would be wrong to neglect one of the most famous directors in history.
There is a bit more to the plot than just some lunatic birds to be fair. Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) is a rich and mischievous socialite who has a seemingly chance encounter with lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor). They meet in a bird shop and soon Melanie is driving up the coast to surprise Mitch in his hometown of Bodega Bay. Everything seems quite normal until Melanie is suddenly attacked by a swooping bird. Soon psychotic birds are attacking everything in sight.
If you had no idea what film you were sitting down to watch you could be forgiven for thinking it was an Audrey Hepburn type romantic film. A playful flirtation between the two leads dominated the first half of the film. Tippi Hedren is very good as the spoiled rich girl who decides to follow a whim and basically stalk her new acquaintance. There is a surreal feel to things however which paves the way for the oddness that is to follow. As soon as the birds, seemingly randomly start to attack, things spiral very quickly into a full scale panic as the entire town begins to panic. The change in direction reminded me of From Dusk 'Till Dawn, or perhaps more appropriately Psycho. Some viewers might feel they are getting two films for the price of one where others might feel disappointed at the change.
As I have said Hitchcock is regarded as the master of suspense and horror. This provides much more suspense than horror for me. The birds of varying species begin to gather before attacks and the film really captures this well. Melanie look on worriedly in one scene as huge numbers of crows land outside a school full of children, angry squawks and nervous looks mingle creating a very tense mood. Where modern audiences will feel let down is the actual attacks. Unfortunately the effects have not aged well, despite the fact that they must have been a fantastic achievement in 1963. I found myself laughing for the wrong reasons in some places, as you can see that some of the birds are made of cardboard.
The surreal feel to the film and the odd characters really made this worthwhile for me. Perhaps this was intended because when the birds start attacking for no apparent reason it doesn't seem much stranger than Melanie following Mitch like a nut job might follow Brittney Spears. Another thing I enjoyed was the fact that no real explanation is offered. There is a great scene where residents of the town are speculating on why the attacks are happening while having their lunch in a diner. No conclusion is reached but everyone has a different theory. Much like the film itself it will divide opinion as it is purposely vague and open to interpretation.
Well worth a watch if you are not too put off by the dated effects.
6/10
There is a bit more to the plot than just some lunatic birds to be fair. Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) is a rich and mischievous socialite who has a seemingly chance encounter with lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor). They meet in a bird shop and soon Melanie is driving up the coast to surprise Mitch in his hometown of Bodega Bay. Everything seems quite normal until Melanie is suddenly attacked by a swooping bird. Soon psychotic birds are attacking everything in sight.
If you had no idea what film you were sitting down to watch you could be forgiven for thinking it was an Audrey Hepburn type romantic film. A playful flirtation between the two leads dominated the first half of the film. Tippi Hedren is very good as the spoiled rich girl who decides to follow a whim and basically stalk her new acquaintance. There is a surreal feel to things however which paves the way for the oddness that is to follow. As soon as the birds, seemingly randomly start to attack, things spiral very quickly into a full scale panic as the entire town begins to panic. The change in direction reminded me of From Dusk 'Till Dawn, or perhaps more appropriately Psycho. Some viewers might feel they are getting two films for the price of one where others might feel disappointed at the change.
As I have said Hitchcock is regarded as the master of suspense and horror. This provides much more suspense than horror for me. The birds of varying species begin to gather before attacks and the film really captures this well. Melanie look on worriedly in one scene as huge numbers of crows land outside a school full of children, angry squawks and nervous looks mingle creating a very tense mood. Where modern audiences will feel let down is the actual attacks. Unfortunately the effects have not aged well, despite the fact that they must have been a fantastic achievement in 1963. I found myself laughing for the wrong reasons in some places, as you can see that some of the birds are made of cardboard.
The surreal feel to the film and the odd characters really made this worthwhile for me. Perhaps this was intended because when the birds start attacking for no apparent reason it doesn't seem much stranger than Melanie following Mitch like a nut job might follow Brittney Spears. Another thing I enjoyed was the fact that no real explanation is offered. There is a great scene where residents of the town are speculating on why the attacks are happening while having their lunch in a diner. No conclusion is reached but everyone has a different theory. Much like the film itself it will divide opinion as it is purposely vague and open to interpretation.
Well worth a watch if you are not too put off by the dated effects.
6/10
Sunday 28 August 2011
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Robert Englund, scarred face, stripy jumper dragging razor blade fingers maliciously across a wall is still one of the scariest images of my childhood. If you grew up in the 80's then the sight of Freddie Krueger could well be enough to send you scurrying into a corner to curl up into a ball and gibber something about dreams not being real. A Nightmare on Elm Street is, let’s face it a proper horror classic. I was so scared the first time I watched it that I woke my brother up, terrified for his life, when he was twitching in his sleep (turns out he was not being stalked by a disfigured psycho in case anyone is interested). I'm not ashamed to say that I heard that haunting song in my head for months afterwards (one two Freddie's coming for you, three four better lock your door...)
The original film, released in 1984 told the story of a group of high school kids being stalked and murdered in their sleep by a mysterious stranger with a burned face and razor blades for fingers. The only way the kids could avoid a grim death was to stay awake so that the dream monster could not get to them. 26 years later and a whole new set of pretty by dim teens must struggle to stay awake.
The first thing I noticed about this film, along with any other released in living memory is that the characters are very good looking. If America was even 10% as attractive as movies make out then no one needs to go on a diet there! Where are all the normal looking people? Even the pointless extras sitting in the diner at the beginning would look like Greek gods if they walked down the street in any British city. People would fall at their feet and weep at the beauty of the average Hollywood extra in any part of the British Isles. Also, as with many new films this has a certain slickness, a quality of production that tells us money has been spent here. This does more harm than good to most horror films for me. Especially so to a film such as this where our memories are filled with fear from the original, but clouded with doubt over the remake.
Freddie is introduced to us in a good opening scene. He appears behind his first would be victim twitching that iconic razor gloved hand, dragging out a haunting sound as metal caresses metal. Then he opens his mouth. Much like a hot woman in Hollyoaks that starts to talk and sounds like an alcoholic truck driver, the illusion is ruined. Too much of this film feels like a smooth imitation of the original. Several scenes try to copy/pay homage to scenes of pure creepiness that would have stuck in your mind as a child watching this for the first time. Yet all they succeed in doing is making the source material feel childish and really diminish the impact you would have felt first time around.
One particular scene that really stuck with me involved a girl being dragged around the ceiling, Freddy’s claw through her stomach, leaving a bloody trail in her wake. This version tries to recreate it when one of the characters is thrown about her bedroom by the monster as her horrified bloke looks on. The result is a poor copy of a scene far more terrifying, achieved with a fraction of the budget and none of the technology. Any chills the audience might feel are created by the story and images of Freddie, none of which are exactly new or even great interpretations of the original material.
It is no horror classic but it is a decent remake because it is based on good material. As the saying goes you can't reinvent the wheel, but you would be a bloody idiot to not be able to copy it. The biggest question that entered my mind as I watched this was how much money will it make? During an hour and a half where no effort is made add to the original that is one of the few things I had to think about. Why bother to make a film with something new to show us when you could just copy one that has already been done and achieve the same result? Have I already something very similar during this blog, repeating my thoughts on this topic in a very familiar way to what I have said before?? F**k it, if you can't beat 'em you might as well join 'em!
4/10
The original film, released in 1984 told the story of a group of high school kids being stalked and murdered in their sleep by a mysterious stranger with a burned face and razor blades for fingers. The only way the kids could avoid a grim death was to stay awake so that the dream monster could not get to them. 26 years later and a whole new set of pretty by dim teens must struggle to stay awake.
The first thing I noticed about this film, along with any other released in living memory is that the characters are very good looking. If America was even 10% as attractive as movies make out then no one needs to go on a diet there! Where are all the normal looking people? Even the pointless extras sitting in the diner at the beginning would look like Greek gods if they walked down the street in any British city. People would fall at their feet and weep at the beauty of the average Hollywood extra in any part of the British Isles. Also, as with many new films this has a certain slickness, a quality of production that tells us money has been spent here. This does more harm than good to most horror films for me. Especially so to a film such as this where our memories are filled with fear from the original, but clouded with doubt over the remake.
Freddie is introduced to us in a good opening scene. He appears behind his first would be victim twitching that iconic razor gloved hand, dragging out a haunting sound as metal caresses metal. Then he opens his mouth. Much like a hot woman in Hollyoaks that starts to talk and sounds like an alcoholic truck driver, the illusion is ruined. Too much of this film feels like a smooth imitation of the original. Several scenes try to copy/pay homage to scenes of pure creepiness that would have stuck in your mind as a child watching this for the first time. Yet all they succeed in doing is making the source material feel childish and really diminish the impact you would have felt first time around.
One particular scene that really stuck with me involved a girl being dragged around the ceiling, Freddy’s claw through her stomach, leaving a bloody trail in her wake. This version tries to recreate it when one of the characters is thrown about her bedroom by the monster as her horrified bloke looks on. The result is a poor copy of a scene far more terrifying, achieved with a fraction of the budget and none of the technology. Any chills the audience might feel are created by the story and images of Freddie, none of which are exactly new or even great interpretations of the original material.
It is no horror classic but it is a decent remake because it is based on good material. As the saying goes you can't reinvent the wheel, but you would be a bloody idiot to not be able to copy it. The biggest question that entered my mind as I watched this was how much money will it make? During an hour and a half where no effort is made add to the original that is one of the few things I had to think about. Why bother to make a film with something new to show us when you could just copy one that has already been done and achieve the same result? Have I already something very similar during this blog, repeating my thoughts on this topic in a very familiar way to what I have said before?? F**k it, if you can't beat 'em you might as well join 'em!
4/10
Friday 26 August 2011
The Inbetweeners (2011)
Like a kid waiting for Christmas I got a bit excited by the release of the Inbetweeners movie. When I ordered my ticket a little bit of wee might have actually come out. It seems I wasn't alone as this became the UK's number 1 film on its opening night. But is this another Kevin and Perry or can it live up to the hype?
Like Kevin and Perry Goes Large it is a film version of a successful TV show (OK I know K&P were characters from a sketch on the Harry Enfield Show but it’s almost the same thing right?). The Inbetweeners was a painfully funny insight into the lives of four teenage boys struggling through the usual trials of school. Narrated by speccy oddball and briefcase carrying geek Will (Simon Bird) it also featured serial bulshitter and wannabe ladies man Jay (James Buckley), gullible but loyal Neil (Blake Harrison) and the love struck everyman Simon (Joe Thomas).
For those of you that have never seen the series I suggest you watch it! But only if you find the following things funny: public humiliation, knob jokes, poo jokes, masturbation jokes, anything to do with anything smutty or puerile or disgusting basically! Where the series really succeeds is showing likeable characters struggling with the everyday ordeal of wanting to be popular in school. The movie picks up where the series left off. The four friends leave school, still unpopular, still socially awkward, but about to go on a lad’s holiday.
The storyline is minimal which in my mind turned out to be a good thing. Too often I have watched comedies and thought the laughs dried up at the expense of the writers feeling the need to tell us some kind of story. I couldn't give a crap what happens to the main character's uncle’s bloody window cleaner! I don't care if their story arc comes to a happy ending! I just want to see them say/do/be the victim of something funny. Thankfully the Inbetweeners doesn't waste much time with such pointless endeavours, except for a very convenient ending which did seem like too much of a crowd pleaser. It gets straight into the expected toilet humour and thankfully stays right down there in the gutter for the duration.
I hope I have made it clear that this is not the film to watch if you are looking for subtle humour. For example the first time we see Jay he is settling down for a good time with his laptop, a glove, a pack of ham and a snorkel! Need I say more? There were a couple of scenes that some of my fellow cinema goers found a little close to the bone, producing more groans that laughs. If you are easily offended then you should stay away from this! If however you want to be thoroughly entertained by a film that rarely lets up in the gags from start to finish then you don't need me to tell you to watch this, you have probably seen it a few times already.
One final thing, Neil doing shots almost made me cry!
8/10
Like Kevin and Perry Goes Large it is a film version of a successful TV show (OK I know K&P were characters from a sketch on the Harry Enfield Show but it’s almost the same thing right?). The Inbetweeners was a painfully funny insight into the lives of four teenage boys struggling through the usual trials of school. Narrated by speccy oddball and briefcase carrying geek Will (Simon Bird) it also featured serial bulshitter and wannabe ladies man Jay (James Buckley), gullible but loyal Neil (Blake Harrison) and the love struck everyman Simon (Joe Thomas).
For those of you that have never seen the series I suggest you watch it! But only if you find the following things funny: public humiliation, knob jokes, poo jokes, masturbation jokes, anything to do with anything smutty or puerile or disgusting basically! Where the series really succeeds is showing likeable characters struggling with the everyday ordeal of wanting to be popular in school. The movie picks up where the series left off. The four friends leave school, still unpopular, still socially awkward, but about to go on a lad’s holiday.
The storyline is minimal which in my mind turned out to be a good thing. Too often I have watched comedies and thought the laughs dried up at the expense of the writers feeling the need to tell us some kind of story. I couldn't give a crap what happens to the main character's uncle’s bloody window cleaner! I don't care if their story arc comes to a happy ending! I just want to see them say/do/be the victim of something funny. Thankfully the Inbetweeners doesn't waste much time with such pointless endeavours, except for a very convenient ending which did seem like too much of a crowd pleaser. It gets straight into the expected toilet humour and thankfully stays right down there in the gutter for the duration.
I hope I have made it clear that this is not the film to watch if you are looking for subtle humour. For example the first time we see Jay he is settling down for a good time with his laptop, a glove, a pack of ham and a snorkel! Need I say more? There were a couple of scenes that some of my fellow cinema goers found a little close to the bone, producing more groans that laughs. If you are easily offended then you should stay away from this! If however you want to be thoroughly entertained by a film that rarely lets up in the gags from start to finish then you don't need me to tell you to watch this, you have probably seen it a few times already.
One final thing, Neil doing shots almost made me cry!
8/10
Wednesday 24 August 2011
Infernal Affairs (2002)
Infernal Affairs is a tale of cops and criminals set in Hong Kong. I found it hard to imagine a film set there without thinking of Jackie Chan and martial arts. Frantic fight scenes with the man himself tumbling through the streets being chased by a huge gang of over acting lunatics. What I found here was nothing of the sort.
It tells the tale of two very different men. Firstly we have Lau Kin-Ming (Andy Lau) who is a triad gang member who is sent by his boss, along with several other members, to enrol in the police academy as moles. Similarly Chan Wing-Yan played by Tony Leung is a top candidate at the same academy. We see him get expelled but in reality he has been selected because of his great potential. He is sent to work undercover with the triad gangs. Sound familiar yet? The Departed with Matt Damon and Leonardo Di Caprio is a remake of this.
What develops is a tense story of the police department and a gang trying frantically to uncover the moles they suspect are operating among their ranks. Everything hinges on the performances of the two leads. Tony Leung in particular is brilliant as a man weighed down by the burden of duty. However Hon Sam (Eric Tsang) steals a lot of scenes as the manic triad boss who seems to love the cat and mouse games he plays with the police.
The introduction was a little hard to follow as it takes off at a fast pace. It is filmed in Mandarin with English subtitles. However any difficulty felt at following the intricate storyline is more than made up for with the quality of the story. If you struggle with the subtitles then I have some advice. Get some glasses or maybe go back to school and learn to read again! It will be worth the effort! Infact you will be doing yourself a favour as there is a huge amount of brilliant films out there not made in English.
I did expect a bit more Eastern mysticism or philosophy from this. Especially as the film starts with a quote relating to unending hell, which is the lowest level of hell in Buddhism. The Chinese title actually translates to "the non-stop path". The theme is reflected more with the lead characters struggles with maintaining their cover as well as their identities than any heavy use of religious imagery. The story really benefits from always remaining contemporary in its setting. It feels like a very slick production that Hollywood would be proud of. There is one scene shot in the 10,000 Buddha’s temple that plays to the theme. Other than that we see the action through crowded streets, police stations and seedy gang hangouts, showing Hong Kong as a great modern metropolis. Several scenes take place on the roof of a skyscraper with a stunning backdrop of Victoria Harbour with Hong Kong Island in view behind.
The story really grips from start to finish, with many surprises along the way. As I have mentioned the two leads really hold things together to such an extent that you might not be sure who to root for as the film rushes towards its climax.
8/10
It tells the tale of two very different men. Firstly we have Lau Kin-Ming (Andy Lau) who is a triad gang member who is sent by his boss, along with several other members, to enrol in the police academy as moles. Similarly Chan Wing-Yan played by Tony Leung is a top candidate at the same academy. We see him get expelled but in reality he has been selected because of his great potential. He is sent to work undercover with the triad gangs. Sound familiar yet? The Departed with Matt Damon and Leonardo Di Caprio is a remake of this.
What develops is a tense story of the police department and a gang trying frantically to uncover the moles they suspect are operating among their ranks. Everything hinges on the performances of the two leads. Tony Leung in particular is brilliant as a man weighed down by the burden of duty. However Hon Sam (Eric Tsang) steals a lot of scenes as the manic triad boss who seems to love the cat and mouse games he plays with the police.
The introduction was a little hard to follow as it takes off at a fast pace. It is filmed in Mandarin with English subtitles. However any difficulty felt at following the intricate storyline is more than made up for with the quality of the story. If you struggle with the subtitles then I have some advice. Get some glasses or maybe go back to school and learn to read again! It will be worth the effort! Infact you will be doing yourself a favour as there is a huge amount of brilliant films out there not made in English.
I did expect a bit more Eastern mysticism or philosophy from this. Especially as the film starts with a quote relating to unending hell, which is the lowest level of hell in Buddhism. The Chinese title actually translates to "the non-stop path". The theme is reflected more with the lead characters struggles with maintaining their cover as well as their identities than any heavy use of religious imagery. The story really benefits from always remaining contemporary in its setting. It feels like a very slick production that Hollywood would be proud of. There is one scene shot in the 10,000 Buddha’s temple that plays to the theme. Other than that we see the action through crowded streets, police stations and seedy gang hangouts, showing Hong Kong as a great modern metropolis. Several scenes take place on the roof of a skyscraper with a stunning backdrop of Victoria Harbour with Hong Kong Island in view behind.
The story really grips from start to finish, with many surprises along the way. As I have mentioned the two leads really hold things together to such an extent that you might not be sure who to root for as the film rushes towards its climax.
8/10
Tuesday 23 August 2011
Saw 6 (2009)
How many times can you flog a dead donkey? SIX times apparently! The first Saw film was released in 2004, a shocking, gory, visceral horror that really made an impact on first viewing. Now here we are on number 6, just a few short years later. I have to be honest I stopped caring after the third instalment. When you first heard the serial killer Jigsaw's distorted voice say "Hello I want to play a game" you were taken on a really intense trip into what quickly became a new genre in horror, 'torture-porn'. Now if you haven't seen any of the films don't be alarmed, there is no actual nudity but there is a lot of torture, all in the name of cinema obviously. Saw jarred our senses with graphic scenes of mutilation and its ability to put the viewer into an impossible situation (could you really contemplate cutting off your own foot to save your life?). By the time Saw 6 arrived I really wondered if there would be anything to keep my attention or would it be a case of same shit different toilet?
To steal another cliché, familiarity breeds contempt. The film starts with two money lenders who prey on the weakness of others in a race against time and each other. They must cut off one pound of flesh in exchange for their lives, but only the first one to manage it will be spared. A hallmark of the Saw franchise and the Jigsaw killer's signature is to teach immoral characters the harshest lesson in order to make them see the error of their ways. The intro is so familiar it loses any impact it should have. When would a person cutting flesh from their own stomach seem utterly run of the mill? When you have seen it all lots of times before!
The immoral character in this film is an insurance company executive who makes his money denying peoples medical claims. He is thrown into a game that forms the centrepiece of the film. There is some plot going on involving a detective who is carrying on Jigsaw's work, some police who are trying to catch the killer and Jigsaw's ex wife. They are all blended together in the same formula as any of the other increasingly poor sequels. The effect is much like a soft porn film where there is some pointless dialogue you have to sit through before the 'action' starts.
Adding to the familiar feel is the direction and the sound track. Jagged camera work with fast zooms in and out accompanied by very real sounding screams, snaps and crunches were genuinely unnerving in the original. By the sixth time around it feels like watching a magician after he has explained the trick away. I have mentioned previously that it seems that most films these days are remakes or sequels with nothing new to say. Saw 6 is a prime example of this. It feels like an attempt to cash in on earlier success by just repeating the same idea with a slight update on the Jigsaw killer’s legacy.
If you are a big fan of the franchise this will probably be a welcome addition. Lots of it is told in flashback so it will fill some holes in the back story for the die-hard fans. For those who stopped caring long ago however there is nothing new here to warrant a viewing.
3/10
To steal another cliché, familiarity breeds contempt. The film starts with two money lenders who prey on the weakness of others in a race against time and each other. They must cut off one pound of flesh in exchange for their lives, but only the first one to manage it will be spared. A hallmark of the Saw franchise and the Jigsaw killer's signature is to teach immoral characters the harshest lesson in order to make them see the error of their ways. The intro is so familiar it loses any impact it should have. When would a person cutting flesh from their own stomach seem utterly run of the mill? When you have seen it all lots of times before!
The immoral character in this film is an insurance company executive who makes his money denying peoples medical claims. He is thrown into a game that forms the centrepiece of the film. There is some plot going on involving a detective who is carrying on Jigsaw's work, some police who are trying to catch the killer and Jigsaw's ex wife. They are all blended together in the same formula as any of the other increasingly poor sequels. The effect is much like a soft porn film where there is some pointless dialogue you have to sit through before the 'action' starts.
Adding to the familiar feel is the direction and the sound track. Jagged camera work with fast zooms in and out accompanied by very real sounding screams, snaps and crunches were genuinely unnerving in the original. By the sixth time around it feels like watching a magician after he has explained the trick away. I have mentioned previously that it seems that most films these days are remakes or sequels with nothing new to say. Saw 6 is a prime example of this. It feels like an attempt to cash in on earlier success by just repeating the same idea with a slight update on the Jigsaw killer’s legacy.
If you are a big fan of the franchise this will probably be a welcome addition. Lots of it is told in flashback so it will fill some holes in the back story for the die-hard fans. For those who stopped caring long ago however there is nothing new here to warrant a viewing.
3/10
Monday 22 August 2011
Sex and the City (2008)
I’m not going to apologise for watching this. I refuse to make this situation worse by trying to make up some justifying excuse as to why I sat through almost two and a half hours of the most girlie film in all creation. I watched the Sex and the City movie. I've seen the TV series in full. There I said it (you are now free to abuse me at will).
1. Why doesn’t Sarah Jessica Parker get that mole on her chin fixed?
2. How rich is Mr Big to be able to spend as much as he does on Just for Men? Or the rest of them on Botox?
3. Do the writers really think their puns are funny? “Carrie got carried away”!!
4. How can anyone spend 5 minutes with Anthhhhhony without punching him? He is the stereotypically bitchy queen in case you were wondering.
5. At what age does Samantha stop being sexy and start becoming creepy like Doris from Gavin and Stacey?
Sadly these questions remain unanswered as the film closes without any real surprises. Although I did begin to suspect that none of Carrie’s friends actually exist. They are all manifestations of her fractured personality-Miranda is the career driven queen of ice and logic. Charlotte is the homemaking princess of all that is prim and proper. Samantha is the sexually aggressive man-eater, free to hunt its prey at will. I suppose it is no great revelation that these are personality strands of the ‘every woman’ that Carrie has to reconcile in order to find her perfect ending. I just found this film more amusing as I imagined Carrie hallucinating the whole thing while sedated on a hospital bed following one bad break up too many.
That being said, once I understood this is a film that values style above substance it is not difficult to see why it was such a huge success. It is a no brainer that fans of the TV series will leave the film happy. If you are new to the SATC girls you could be drawn in by the easy narration, constant emphasis on style and fashion and frank discussions between friends where no topic is out of bounds. Or you could be appalled by the constant shower of girlie gooiness, dodgy puns and rapidly aging cast behaving like hormonal teenagers with credit cards.
I’m sure that this film will be loved by fans, praised by newcomers and hated by others in equal measure. To be fair it is a pretty perfect version of what it is, much like the plague was! Just don’t go into this expecting it to be anything other than what it claims to be in the opening 5 minutes.
5/10
For those of you who have been living in a cave for the last 15 years a brief explanation might be needed. This film is a follow on from the TV series of the same name. Carrie Bradshaw, a sex columnist and her terminally single ‘gal pals’ strut around New York draped in designer gear, drinking designer cocktails and obsessing over men and more specifically sex. The film is an extended episode of the show basically. In a nutshell it’s about some old bird that may or may not marry her boyfriend. So is this one for the fans only, or is it capable of bringing in a new audience and not driving thousands of men to throw themselves out of the nearest window in horror?
Within the first 5 minutes of the film starting, its stall is firmly set out. Carrie, through her continuous and slightly smug narration tells us the three most important things in life are labels, love and some other bloody l I can’t be bothered to remember. The bar is set high; for this is clearly a film devoted to probing deep into the innermost workings of the human heart. Certainly no inch of our enigmatic psyche will be left unexamined. Some of the greatest questions ever asked by the human race will be answered during the ensuing journey of discovery through the full gamut of human emotions. Questions such as: Which designer’s dress will Carrie wear at her wedding? What outfits will she throw out of her wardrobe? And what will Samantha do without her daily dose of dick?
As the plot shuffles along I find myself asking some very important questions of my own.Within the first 5 minutes of the film starting, its stall is firmly set out. Carrie, through her continuous and slightly smug narration tells us the three most important things in life are labels, love and some other bloody l I can’t be bothered to remember. The bar is set high; for this is clearly a film devoted to probing deep into the innermost workings of the human heart. Certainly no inch of our enigmatic psyche will be left unexamined. Some of the greatest questions ever asked by the human race will be answered during the ensuing journey of discovery through the full gamut of human emotions. Questions such as: Which designer’s dress will Carrie wear at her wedding? What outfits will she throw out of her wardrobe? And what will Samantha do without her daily dose of dick?
1. Why doesn’t Sarah Jessica Parker get that mole on her chin fixed?
2. How rich is Mr Big to be able to spend as much as he does on Just for Men? Or the rest of them on Botox?
3. Do the writers really think their puns are funny? “Carrie got carried away”!!
4. How can anyone spend 5 minutes with Anthhhhhony without punching him? He is the stereotypically bitchy queen in case you were wondering.
5. At what age does Samantha stop being sexy and start becoming creepy like Doris from Gavin and Stacey?
Sadly these questions remain unanswered as the film closes without any real surprises. Although I did begin to suspect that none of Carrie’s friends actually exist. They are all manifestations of her fractured personality-Miranda is the career driven queen of ice and logic. Charlotte is the homemaking princess of all that is prim and proper. Samantha is the sexually aggressive man-eater, free to hunt its prey at will. I suppose it is no great revelation that these are personality strands of the ‘every woman’ that Carrie has to reconcile in order to find her perfect ending. I just found this film more amusing as I imagined Carrie hallucinating the whole thing while sedated on a hospital bed following one bad break up too many.
That being said, once I understood this is a film that values style above substance it is not difficult to see why it was such a huge success. It is a no brainer that fans of the TV series will leave the film happy. If you are new to the SATC girls you could be drawn in by the easy narration, constant emphasis on style and fashion and frank discussions between friends where no topic is out of bounds. Or you could be appalled by the constant shower of girlie gooiness, dodgy puns and rapidly aging cast behaving like hormonal teenagers with credit cards.
I’m sure that this film will be loved by fans, praised by newcomers and hated by others in equal measure. To be fair it is a pretty perfect version of what it is, much like the plague was! Just don’t go into this expecting it to be anything other than what it claims to be in the opening 5 minutes.
5/10
Saturday 20 August 2011
Frankenstein (1931)
It's about time I got around to watching this film. The classic black and white horror starring Boris Karloff. It seems almost as famous to me as Gone with The Wind (another I have not seen but will attempt to at some point) or Casablanca (seen that one!). I went into this having watched a few very modern films recently so I was looking forward to a change of pace. Yet I feel conflicted. As I was watching I couldn't decide whether to review this as if it was made yesterday or to take into account the fact that it is 80 years old. Then I thought sod it. This is my blog; I can do both if I want.
Just a quick preface first though: You all know the story of a man's rebellion against God, where science challenges the supreme by creating life where there should be none. In this interpretation of Shelley's novel Dr Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is the mad scientist. His obsession leads to the birth of Frankenstein's Monster (Boris Karloff). The creator is horrified by his creation and things go a bit pear shaped etc...
Review 1. Aww it’s so old!
The curtain rises on a stormy, oppressive scene where Henry and his creepy hunchbacked assistant rob a freshly laid grave. Crooked gravestones, squawking crows and distraught mourners fill the viewer with a sense of unease. The lack of a proper musical score is offset by the mood created by the sounds of the elements as the wind howls, lightning cracks and people shriek. The director does a fine job of capturing the gothic theme of the original story. The lab where the monster is born is particularly good and has clearly been copied a thousand times since. Karloff is eerie as the monster (and brilliantly he is not named in the credits, appearing only as...?)
Some scenes would clearly have been disturbing to an audience not accustomed to the shock tactics that lots of modern films seem to revel in. A particularly haunting scene that shows the monster as both a thing to be pitied and feared begins with him finding a young girl playing alone by the side of a lake (it was actually left out of the original release because it was thought too shocking). The moral ambiguity that Karloff brings to the role really hits home here and as the film sweeps to its inevitable conclusion you do feel sympathy. A very atmospheric retelling of the famous story.
Review 2. I don't care if it’s old. It shouldn't have pissed the bed.
Before the film begins an actor steps out from behind a curtain to warn the audience that what they are about to see could shock and horrify them. He invites us to leave now if we are of a faint disposition. By the end of the film I thought what a big fat liar that bloke turned out to be. Billed as a horror film, this will fail miserably to affect the modern viewer. It makes me wonder if people in the 1930's would walk down the street only to fill their pants when they cross their own shadow. Could they be found shaking like Courtney Love without her 'medication' every time the sun went down? At one point the monster is laid on an autopsy table, heavily sedated, as some scientist type is about to cut into him. The monsters hand starts to creep up in readiness to strangle the unsuspecting man. The whole thing is ruined by the monsters eyes opening every time the scientist turns his back. Any sense of surprise or tension is wrecked by the obviousness of the scene.
Also there is some seriously dodgy acting throughout (age is no excuse for bad acting I'm afraid). But perhaps most annoying is the fact that the characters are all referred to as Herr or Frauline but sound like they are all characters from the Wizard of Oz (to be fair this is still something that appears in films, Sean Connery as a Russian submarine captain in Hunt for red October is just funny!). There are too many things that ruin the atmosphere and the story for this to be a true classic in my opinion.
Conclusion: Perhaps shocking in its day but sadly dated and riddled with too many imperfections. This is a decent film but could have been so much better if the overall production value was improved. It feels like so much time was spent creating the gothic atmosphere that they forgot to get much decent acting done.
5/10
Just a quick preface first though: You all know the story of a man's rebellion against God, where science challenges the supreme by creating life where there should be none. In this interpretation of Shelley's novel Dr Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is the mad scientist. His obsession leads to the birth of Frankenstein's Monster (Boris Karloff). The creator is horrified by his creation and things go a bit pear shaped etc...
Review 1. Aww it’s so old!
The curtain rises on a stormy, oppressive scene where Henry and his creepy hunchbacked assistant rob a freshly laid grave. Crooked gravestones, squawking crows and distraught mourners fill the viewer with a sense of unease. The lack of a proper musical score is offset by the mood created by the sounds of the elements as the wind howls, lightning cracks and people shriek. The director does a fine job of capturing the gothic theme of the original story. The lab where the monster is born is particularly good and has clearly been copied a thousand times since. Karloff is eerie as the monster (and brilliantly he is not named in the credits, appearing only as...?)
Some scenes would clearly have been disturbing to an audience not accustomed to the shock tactics that lots of modern films seem to revel in. A particularly haunting scene that shows the monster as both a thing to be pitied and feared begins with him finding a young girl playing alone by the side of a lake (it was actually left out of the original release because it was thought too shocking). The moral ambiguity that Karloff brings to the role really hits home here and as the film sweeps to its inevitable conclusion you do feel sympathy. A very atmospheric retelling of the famous story.
Review 2. I don't care if it’s old. It shouldn't have pissed the bed.
Before the film begins an actor steps out from behind a curtain to warn the audience that what they are about to see could shock and horrify them. He invites us to leave now if we are of a faint disposition. By the end of the film I thought what a big fat liar that bloke turned out to be. Billed as a horror film, this will fail miserably to affect the modern viewer. It makes me wonder if people in the 1930's would walk down the street only to fill their pants when they cross their own shadow. Could they be found shaking like Courtney Love without her 'medication' every time the sun went down? At one point the monster is laid on an autopsy table, heavily sedated, as some scientist type is about to cut into him. The monsters hand starts to creep up in readiness to strangle the unsuspecting man. The whole thing is ruined by the monsters eyes opening every time the scientist turns his back. Any sense of surprise or tension is wrecked by the obviousness of the scene.
Also there is some seriously dodgy acting throughout (age is no excuse for bad acting I'm afraid). But perhaps most annoying is the fact that the characters are all referred to as Herr or Frauline but sound like they are all characters from the Wizard of Oz (to be fair this is still something that appears in films, Sean Connery as a Russian submarine captain in Hunt for red October is just funny!). There are too many things that ruin the atmosphere and the story for this to be a true classic in my opinion.
Conclusion: Perhaps shocking in its day but sadly dated and riddled with too many imperfections. This is a decent film but could have been so much better if the overall production value was improved. It feels like so much time was spent creating the gothic atmosphere that they forgot to get much decent acting done.
5/10
Friday 19 August 2011
Source Code (2011)
When people hear the words sci-fi, action thriller and time travel one of two things seem to happen. The geek in you thinks ohhh sounds like my kind of film. Or the defences go up and you think I'm not watching that nonsense. I belong in the huge geek camp so it took no persuading to make me watch this film. If you are one of those who would rather watch a film about real characters in real situations then I must beg you! Please do not dismiss this film as one you will never be interested in!
Source Code is the latest effort by Moon Director Duncan Jones. It stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Colter Stevens, a soldier who is sent to relive the last 8 minutes of someone else's life through a clever little thing called the Source Code. The person whose life he briefly shares is about to die in a terrorist attack on a packed commuter train. Colter must keep reliving this brief moment in time until he is able to discover who the attacker is so that he can stop any further attacks. The film cuts between Colter's time in the Source Code and his time in the present where he must report his discoveries to his commanding officers before being thrown back into his mission.
The core of this film really revolves around the two relationships that Colter develops. Firstly with Christina (Michelle Monaghan), a doomed commuter on the train. Secondly with Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), his commander on the mission. Despite the sci-fi story line there is a very human element to this film. Gyllenhaal is brilliant as his character journeys through more emotions than I could count. Confused, angry, elated, distraught, scared and horny are but a few! I found more believable emotion here than some films that spend their entire running time trying to manipulate your heart strings (see one particular earlier review!).
Source Code never really gets too bogged down by the technical stuff that sometimes stifles sci-fi films. The idea of the Source Code is a device that allows the drama to unfold and the characters to develop. Add to that the stunning cinematography that seems to be a hallmark of the director's style and you get a film that really works. Gyllenhaal carries the film throughout with tons of charisma as he explores the possibilities of being able to do things over and over. It will bring comparisons with 12 Monkeys and Groundhog Day due to its main premise, so if you enjoyed either then you could do a lot worse than give this a go.
On a side note the train they are on is AMAZING! It’s a double decker! And it has a donut shop. It also looks far cleaner than any NHS hospital I have ever seen.
My only real gripe with this film is what I've come to think of as the 'Hollywood Ending'. If this film had ended a few minutes before it did I would be thinking 9/10. As it was I can't bring myself to give so lofty a score. I don't want to give any more away about the ending except to say there is a definite moment when things 'slow down' a little that would have been the perfect place to wrap things up.
8/10
Source Code is the latest effort by Moon Director Duncan Jones. It stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Colter Stevens, a soldier who is sent to relive the last 8 minutes of someone else's life through a clever little thing called the Source Code. The person whose life he briefly shares is about to die in a terrorist attack on a packed commuter train. Colter must keep reliving this brief moment in time until he is able to discover who the attacker is so that he can stop any further attacks. The film cuts between Colter's time in the Source Code and his time in the present where he must report his discoveries to his commanding officers before being thrown back into his mission.
The core of this film really revolves around the two relationships that Colter develops. Firstly with Christina (Michelle Monaghan), a doomed commuter on the train. Secondly with Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), his commander on the mission. Despite the sci-fi story line there is a very human element to this film. Gyllenhaal is brilliant as his character journeys through more emotions than I could count. Confused, angry, elated, distraught, scared and horny are but a few! I found more believable emotion here than some films that spend their entire running time trying to manipulate your heart strings (see one particular earlier review!).
Source Code never really gets too bogged down by the technical stuff that sometimes stifles sci-fi films. The idea of the Source Code is a device that allows the drama to unfold and the characters to develop. Add to that the stunning cinematography that seems to be a hallmark of the director's style and you get a film that really works. Gyllenhaal carries the film throughout with tons of charisma as he explores the possibilities of being able to do things over and over. It will bring comparisons with 12 Monkeys and Groundhog Day due to its main premise, so if you enjoyed either then you could do a lot worse than give this a go.
On a side note the train they are on is AMAZING! It’s a double decker! And it has a donut shop. It also looks far cleaner than any NHS hospital I have ever seen.
My only real gripe with this film is what I've come to think of as the 'Hollywood Ending'. If this film had ended a few minutes before it did I would be thinking 9/10. As it was I can't bring myself to give so lofty a score. I don't want to give any more away about the ending except to say there is a definite moment when things 'slow down' a little that would have been the perfect place to wrap things up.
8/10
Thursday 18 August 2011
Super (2010)
You just can't get away from superhero films these days. Superman and then Batman (the originals) were huge in their day. It seems that ever since the box office success of these films people have tried to emulate them. There have been some great ones and some absolute stinkers. Did anyone actually like Daredevil or Catwoman? Thought not. The cinema seems to be drowning in a constant flood of comic book cash-ins now. I couldn't have been less excited when Captain America was advertised. Another two hours of CGI as good battles evil... again.
So when Kickass came to our screens it blew me away. It felt like that most rare of events, an original film! Super seems to want to take up that mantle of a superhero movie with a difference. Rainn Wilson plays our hero Frank D'Arbo, average looking, shy and neurotic. He is thrown from his dull existence into a world of increasing insanity when his wife, former junkie Liv Tyler leaves him for a drug dealer named Jock (Kevin Bacon).
All the elements of the typical superhero movie are here. We have a traumatic event that shapes our hero, the creation of his alter ego and his early attempts at crime fighting. But Super is different. Dark and irreverent, with some very graphic violence. I was expecting to see a comedy like Napoleon Dynamite in a Spiderman outfit. Although this is very funny at times (think awkward, random humour not American Pie or The Hangover type set pieces), it is also very disturbing in places. I would not recommend this for the squeamish or easily offended.
Wilson is excellent as poor Frank, ranging from love sick puppy to raging psychopath. Kevin Bacon also puts in a top performance but for pure craziness Ellen Page (Juno) steals the show. F*****g mental is all I can say!
I loved this film in places but did feel it lost its way a little. It starts as a dark comedy but threatens to become a little too serious at times. At the heart of the film we have a tragic love story between two broken characters. Then we have the super hero parody. Then we have the over the top violence of a film that sets out to shock. I suppose I should be grateful that it does not just sit easily into one genre. A big strength of this film is its ability to surprise. I just don't think that it will surprise some people in a good way.
If you find yourself laughing at unnecessary violence or grown men wearing red spandex then this might well be the film for you. A superhero movie for the Family Guy generation.
8/10
So when Kickass came to our screens it blew me away. It felt like that most rare of events, an original film! Super seems to want to take up that mantle of a superhero movie with a difference. Rainn Wilson plays our hero Frank D'Arbo, average looking, shy and neurotic. He is thrown from his dull existence into a world of increasing insanity when his wife, former junkie Liv Tyler leaves him for a drug dealer named Jock (Kevin Bacon).
All the elements of the typical superhero movie are here. We have a traumatic event that shapes our hero, the creation of his alter ego and his early attempts at crime fighting. But Super is different. Dark and irreverent, with some very graphic violence. I was expecting to see a comedy like Napoleon Dynamite in a Spiderman outfit. Although this is very funny at times (think awkward, random humour not American Pie or The Hangover type set pieces), it is also very disturbing in places. I would not recommend this for the squeamish or easily offended.
Wilson is excellent as poor Frank, ranging from love sick puppy to raging psychopath. Kevin Bacon also puts in a top performance but for pure craziness Ellen Page (Juno) steals the show. F*****g mental is all I can say!
I loved this film in places but did feel it lost its way a little. It starts as a dark comedy but threatens to become a little too serious at times. At the heart of the film we have a tragic love story between two broken characters. Then we have the super hero parody. Then we have the over the top violence of a film that sets out to shock. I suppose I should be grateful that it does not just sit easily into one genre. A big strength of this film is its ability to surprise. I just don't think that it will surprise some people in a good way.
If you find yourself laughing at unnecessary violence or grown men wearing red spandex then this might well be the film for you. A superhero movie for the Family Guy generation.
8/10
The Lost Valentine (2011)
I knew there would come a time during this year I would be backed into a corner. I knew that I was not going to get away with watching the one thing men fear above all else... a chick flick! Let’s face it, every man likes to pretend that he is in charge. But all pretence must be left aside here. The fact that I have watched this film makes all idle manly boasts about being in charge completely irrelevant. I would rather go on a 10 mile run wearing my fiancé’s highest heels screaming I am a big fat sissy whore all the way than watch this film... yet here I am writing a review on it.
Jennifer Love Hewitt is a modern day reporter for a TV show or something (already I'm realising I may not have been paying this film my full attention). She stumbles upon a story about a lady who goes to the train station every Valentine's Day to wait for her husband to return from World War 2. Hewitt has the perfect life, with the perfect boyfriend etc... Then she starts the interview of a lifetime and meets the hunky grandson of the widow as the director cuts between past and present to tell both stories...
Phew I think that is basically the whole plot in one small paragraph. I don't need to go on do I? Really? Look, if you need me to go on you have probably never seen a film before. You might be the kind of person who winds a jack-in-the-box and jumps every time it pops. Maybe you watched Titanic and were shocked when it sank.
I found myself wondering who would enjoy this film. All insults aside it is a straight up romance with some attempt at comedy and shameless illusions of being a weepy. My fiancé assures me it was a decent film and would be enjoyed by girls on a sleep over. I on the other hand find it much more fun to be mean about it!
I did laugh out loud at one point. The handsome love interest tells our panting love struck puppy J. Hew that he gave up a great job because he saw the type of men who did that job: " divorced, unhappy, don't see their kids" as some soppy music plays in the background. OMG how perfect is this man, with his good looks and family values. This guy gives all the rest of us a bad name. This is a scene of breathtakingly obvious proportions that gets replicated across an entire genre. You know the moment in any chick flick where the girl falls for the guy over a tender moment. Her eyes drink him in, her lip quivers ever so slightly as he gazes off into the distance telling a little anecdote to illustrate how perfect he is! Sorry I just sicked a little in my mouth.
I understand that people will watch this film and I can't blame them because it will deliver what it says on the tin. I suppose I can't even blame the film makers because they have delivered what they set out to do and made some money in the process. What really bothers me is that I hate myself for agreeing to watch this. The story of an elderly woman's long lost love and the tribute it pays to the armed forces are trivialised by the attempt to fit it into the chick flick genre. The shallow contrived rubbish of the modern day romance lays waste to anything good that might have been here.
2/10
Jennifer Love Hewitt is a modern day reporter for a TV show or something (already I'm realising I may not have been paying this film my full attention). She stumbles upon a story about a lady who goes to the train station every Valentine's Day to wait for her husband to return from World War 2. Hewitt has the perfect life, with the perfect boyfriend etc... Then she starts the interview of a lifetime and meets the hunky grandson of the widow as the director cuts between past and present to tell both stories...
Phew I think that is basically the whole plot in one small paragraph. I don't need to go on do I? Really? Look, if you need me to go on you have probably never seen a film before. You might be the kind of person who winds a jack-in-the-box and jumps every time it pops. Maybe you watched Titanic and were shocked when it sank.
I found myself wondering who would enjoy this film. All insults aside it is a straight up romance with some attempt at comedy and shameless illusions of being a weepy. My fiancé assures me it was a decent film and would be enjoyed by girls on a sleep over. I on the other hand find it much more fun to be mean about it!
I did laugh out loud at one point. The handsome love interest tells our panting love struck puppy J. Hew that he gave up a great job because he saw the type of men who did that job: " divorced, unhappy, don't see their kids" as some soppy music plays in the background. OMG how perfect is this man, with his good looks and family values. This guy gives all the rest of us a bad name. This is a scene of breathtakingly obvious proportions that gets replicated across an entire genre. You know the moment in any chick flick where the girl falls for the guy over a tender moment. Her eyes drink him in, her lip quivers ever so slightly as he gazes off into the distance telling a little anecdote to illustrate how perfect he is! Sorry I just sicked a little in my mouth.
I understand that people will watch this film and I can't blame them because it will deliver what it says on the tin. I suppose I can't even blame the film makers because they have delivered what they set out to do and made some money in the process. What really bothers me is that I hate myself for agreeing to watch this. The story of an elderly woman's long lost love and the tribute it pays to the armed forces are trivialised by the attempt to fit it into the chick flick genre. The shallow contrived rubbish of the modern day romance lays waste to anything good that might have been here.
2/10
Wednesday 17 August 2011
The A-Team (2010)
Duuuuh duh duh duh.... duh duh duuuuuh.
d..d.. duh duh duh duh.
Duh d..d..d..duuuuuuh!
Are you humming along yet?
The A-Team was always a favourite of mine as a kid. What was not to like? From the amazing theme tune to the brilliant voice over intro and that awesome looking truck. A rogues gallery of military misfits (mad Murdoch often stole the show) helping out the good guys by waging war on the bad guys, using any old junk they could find laying around. Always ending with that classic line, "I love it when a plan comes together!" Is there a bloke in this country that hasn't muttered that line while drunkenly smoking a cigar at someone’s birthday or wedding?
I was really hoping this would be a stylish re-imagining, bringing Hannibal, Face, B.A. and Murdoch back to life, and not a soulless 'reboot' like a few others that have been released lately (Planet of the Apes was so bad Tim Burton but I forgive you.xx) It does make me wonder if film makers prefer to just take an old idea and try to squeeze a few extra quid out of it rather than risk an original story (but that is a rant for another day).
I loved the opening to this film. Hannibal, played by a resurgent Liam Neeson kicks some ass and quickly lights a cigar! We are treated to a fast paced opening 20 or so minutes where the main characters are introduced. B.A (Bosco apparently) is played surprisingly well by UFC hard man Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson, Face is Bradley Cooper and Murdoch is Sharlto Copley. It does start as a warm homage and a slick update but then it skips forward 8 years so the main storyline can begin...
This is where my problems really begin. A main plot involving some army woman type that Face had a fling with, a cocky CIA agent, a corrupt defence contractor and something about a money press... YAWN. I was bored. There seemed to be a fixed pattern by this point, some plot talk, a few wise cracks by Face (was he always this annoying in the original or is that just Cooper?) and I would start falling asleep. Then a huge BANG as some action kicks off and I'm awake again.
There are some good moments but they get lost as the director tries to make things look too clever. Hannibal starts describing a plan as the action cuts to the actual execution of it. It all seemed too much like Ocean's 11 and not enough like the original DIY man's dream of saving the day using 3 rubber bands, a tin of chicken soup and the help of a local boy named Paco. I could relate to the original, running round my mates back garden building booby traps with anything we could find and urging his little brother to "just step on that plank, it won't hurt honest." Sadly this is a reboot, meaning everything has to be so over the top it has lost most of the charm of the 80's TV series.
Face is far too annoying. Did I mention this before? He annoyed me so much I think I have subconsciously blocked all memory of his one liners. The group is saved by the banter between B.A. and Murdoch, who provide the best moments of the film for my money. Jackson seems to have a really good time cursing his way through almost every scene and shouting threats at everyone.
Overall it is a fairly decent dumb ass action movie made better by playing to our fond childhood memories of the original show. What could make a scene involving a parachuting tank any better? B.A. shouting "you can't fly a tank fool!" of course.
4/10
Tuesday 16 August 2011
Knight and Day (2010)
During the course of this year I am determined to watch a wide variety of films. Some old, some new and some I ordinarily wouldn’t touch with a stinky tramp's bargepole. I knew I was going to have to take the rough with the smooth, sort the wheat from the chaff and trawl through the good the bad and the ugly... So with this torrent of clichés in mind I came to watch Knight and Day.
Within minutes of the start you are told to see Tom Cruise as the unflappable, ultra cool, wise cracking action hero. Cameron Diaz is the sexy but dipsy and ultimately resourceful foil to Tom 'Superman' Cruise. I was already wondering if I will see a more cliché ridden film all year. Could this movie be any more formulated?
Can't you just hear the voiceover guy that seems to do the trailers for all these films? You know the one, impossibly deep and urgent tones... "Cruise and Diaz in an action packed comedy... A high octane thriller... Taking you on a rollercoaster ride..." I can picture the film producers sipping mojitos during their power lunch in an overpriced LA 'hip' spot throwing around phrases like: Star vehicle, quirky comedy, on-screen chemistry.
Which basically translates to: let’s take a weak idea, pay two huge stars to go through the motions and make some money at the box office. Whatever happened to making films to tell a story or even just to try to engage the audience on an emotional level just for the briefest of times? Instead we are treated to 90 minutes of another Hollywood studio making a film with nothing but profit in mind. Self pleasure from the money men is all I can see here, like a dog licking its own bits just because it can!!
I do feel obliged to talk about the plot a little as this is meant to be a film review. Blah blah secret agent. Blah blah framed. Blah blah clears name. That’s about it really.
The two main characters are so obvious it is patronising. Cruise tries hard to be the man all women want and all men want to be. Diaz is the gorgeous girl who happens to love classic cars and can even restore them! See what they did there? Back to those Hollywood producers on their fifth mojito by now, "it's the perfect date movie; it will appeal to both sexes."
Sticking with the obvious theme there was one scene that annoyed me more than most. Diaz has been captured by bad guys and has been given some 'truth serum' so she will give them some info about something I stopped paying attention to eons before. Cruise rescues her. Do you need me to go on? F**k it, I'm going to anyway! "Miller you excite me" she blurts out. "I feel like having sex now." "We could have really great sex." Hmmm didn't see those jokes coming.
I'm probably being too harsh. I knew what I was sitting down to watch and it wasn't far from what I expected. I wouldn't go to a Cheryl Cole gig expecting Mozart and I wouldn't watch Eastenders expecting to have my mood uplifted. Yet I kept thinking that True Lies with Arnie and Jamie Lee Curtis was everything this film wanted to be and never came close to achieving.
The best thing I can say about Knight and Day is that it is fast paced and Diaz looks good in a bikini. Oh and in the end credits there is a 'Marine coordinator' named Captain Troy Waters.
2/10
Within minutes of the start you are told to see Tom Cruise as the unflappable, ultra cool, wise cracking action hero. Cameron Diaz is the sexy but dipsy and ultimately resourceful foil to Tom 'Superman' Cruise. I was already wondering if I will see a more cliché ridden film all year. Could this movie be any more formulated?
Can't you just hear the voiceover guy that seems to do the trailers for all these films? You know the one, impossibly deep and urgent tones... "Cruise and Diaz in an action packed comedy... A high octane thriller... Taking you on a rollercoaster ride..." I can picture the film producers sipping mojitos during their power lunch in an overpriced LA 'hip' spot throwing around phrases like: Star vehicle, quirky comedy, on-screen chemistry.
Which basically translates to: let’s take a weak idea, pay two huge stars to go through the motions and make some money at the box office. Whatever happened to making films to tell a story or even just to try to engage the audience on an emotional level just for the briefest of times? Instead we are treated to 90 minutes of another Hollywood studio making a film with nothing but profit in mind. Self pleasure from the money men is all I can see here, like a dog licking its own bits just because it can!!
I do feel obliged to talk about the plot a little as this is meant to be a film review. Blah blah secret agent. Blah blah framed. Blah blah clears name. That’s about it really.
The two main characters are so obvious it is patronising. Cruise tries hard to be the man all women want and all men want to be. Diaz is the gorgeous girl who happens to love classic cars and can even restore them! See what they did there? Back to those Hollywood producers on their fifth mojito by now, "it's the perfect date movie; it will appeal to both sexes."
Sticking with the obvious theme there was one scene that annoyed me more than most. Diaz has been captured by bad guys and has been given some 'truth serum' so she will give them some info about something I stopped paying attention to eons before. Cruise rescues her. Do you need me to go on? F**k it, I'm going to anyway! "Miller you excite me" she blurts out. "I feel like having sex now." "We could have really great sex." Hmmm didn't see those jokes coming.
I'm probably being too harsh. I knew what I was sitting down to watch and it wasn't far from what I expected. I wouldn't go to a Cheryl Cole gig expecting Mozart and I wouldn't watch Eastenders expecting to have my mood uplifted. Yet I kept thinking that True Lies with Arnie and Jamie Lee Curtis was everything this film wanted to be and never came close to achieving.
The best thing I can say about Knight and Day is that it is fast paced and Diaz looks good in a bikini. Oh and in the end credits there is a 'Marine coordinator' named Captain Troy Waters.
2/10
Sunday 14 August 2011
An Officer and a Gentleman (1982)
I wasn't sure what to expect of this film. You have probably heard the ending referenced on countless TV shows. It seems to be one of those films that has worked its way into the general consciousness, but I won't give it away just in case you don't know. I think it's enough to say that it is known as one of the classic romances, with Richard Gere as Zack Mayo in probably his second most famous role. Yet it is also sold as a new Naval recruit's attempt to get through a tough officer training academy. Could I expect soppy romance or gritty military drama?
Cue an over the top 80's soundtrack of power ballads and an opening few scenes featuring Zack's alcoholic, whore chasing father (Robert Loggia) and my expectations rose. Loggia is an actor with real character. A voice like whiskey and cigarettes distilled over nails. Yes I am a huge Scarface fan and therefore a big fan of Loggia! Sadly he is very underused and after stealing the show at the start the film quickly moves on without him.
Another good performance comes from Louis Gossett Jr as the ever angry drill sergeant in charge of turning Mayo from smug rebellious layabout into a leader of men. I got the feeling that I was watching a light version of Full Metal Jacket, then I found out that was made in 1987 so I have to concede it wasn't as much of a cliché as I thought.
The main theme of the film however seems to be an extension of the American Dream. It is chased down clearly by Gere in his attempts to become an officer, but also more confusingly by two local girls. Paula and Lynette get tarted up every weekend and prowl the bars hoping to bag themselves a future officer. I could go into a big rant at this point about how women have become more empowered these days, how they don't need men to become a success. Yet every time I turn on the TV or look at a magazine I'm faced with a wannabe WAG! Now don't get me wrong, I know that most women want success in their own right, and that most women cringe at the idea of being a trophy wife. But let’s face it ladies, there is a tiny minority of opportunistic, cosmetically augmented, way too tanned hunters on the prowl. To be fair it seems a good career if you can get it but I just don't want to hear about it every day!
This distortion on the pursuit of the American Dream does lead to an unexpected dark twist in the film, probably saving it from sinking in a shallow sex haze as Mayo and Paula embark on an obvious course.
With a few good performances (to be fair Richard Gere is good also, and actually has dark hair it’s so old school!) I was pleasantly surprised by this film.
6/10
Cue an over the top 80's soundtrack of power ballads and an opening few scenes featuring Zack's alcoholic, whore chasing father (Robert Loggia) and my expectations rose. Loggia is an actor with real character. A voice like whiskey and cigarettes distilled over nails. Yes I am a huge Scarface fan and therefore a big fan of Loggia! Sadly he is very underused and after stealing the show at the start the film quickly moves on without him.
Another good performance comes from Louis Gossett Jr as the ever angry drill sergeant in charge of turning Mayo from smug rebellious layabout into a leader of men. I got the feeling that I was watching a light version of Full Metal Jacket, then I found out that was made in 1987 so I have to concede it wasn't as much of a cliché as I thought.
The main theme of the film however seems to be an extension of the American Dream. It is chased down clearly by Gere in his attempts to become an officer, but also more confusingly by two local girls. Paula and Lynette get tarted up every weekend and prowl the bars hoping to bag themselves a future officer. I could go into a big rant at this point about how women have become more empowered these days, how they don't need men to become a success. Yet every time I turn on the TV or look at a magazine I'm faced with a wannabe WAG! Now don't get me wrong, I know that most women want success in their own right, and that most women cringe at the idea of being a trophy wife. But let’s face it ladies, there is a tiny minority of opportunistic, cosmetically augmented, way too tanned hunters on the prowl. To be fair it seems a good career if you can get it but I just don't want to hear about it every day!
This distortion on the pursuit of the American Dream does lead to an unexpected dark twist in the film, probably saving it from sinking in a shallow sex haze as Mayo and Paula embark on an obvious course.
With a few good performances (to be fair Richard Gere is good also, and actually has dark hair it’s so old school!) I was pleasantly surprised by this film.
6/10
Last Night (1998)
Sometimes you read a film blurb and think YES that sounds like an interesting idea.
I found this Canadian film on Film4. Imagine it is your last night on earth. What would you do? As far as I am aware I have never seen a Canadian film. I know the Southpark writers are Canadian (does that mean Team America: World Police is a Canadian film? Disregard the previous if that is the case.) The description promised "a very different group of individuals with very different ideas of how to face the end" (thanks to IMDB.com). I thought I had to give this a go, it sounded pretty far from your typical Hollywood blockbuster.
My mind wandered as I sat to watch the credits. Seeing the possibilities of a world without hope. People without any fear of a tomorrow that will never come. I saw riotous street gangs, unashamed debauchery and desperate acts from desperate people. Maybe I had just been watching the news too much recently! The idea of a world that you knew was going to end in 6 hours really caught my imagination. People can be bad enough when there is accountability, but take all consequence away...
Well if you take away a Canadian's accountability they go to the supermarket to get ingredients for a last meal, or go round their mums for a mock-up Christmas dinner apparently. I am happy to excuse a films low budget, but a lack of ambition cannot be forgiven. I'm sure some people who have watched this (there must be half a dozen of them on this planet somewhere) will point to the fact that it is an understated look at people's need to find some connection with their fellow man. That not all films need lightening pace, witty dialogue or kooky charm. But in the absence of big bangs and loud explosions you need to have some kind of charm or humour, even a subtle sense of dread to make a film like this work.
10 minutes into this film I was bored. It had none of the above I'm afraid. I wanted to like it but the lead actors lack of any kind of charm made it really difficult to care that the world was about to end. Anyone who has been in Play night club in Swansea will probably know this feeling! The closest thing to a likeable character was ginger love machine Alex who resolves to fulfil all of his ambitions, sexual of course. Ironically he would probably have enjoyed Play.
I feel it is my responsibility to watch a wide variety of films on this little journey, so I am glad I gave this a go and made it to the end, much like the people must have been glad it was ending in this piss boring town (sorry, that was the last bad pun I promise). What started as a great idea shrivelled into a poor attempt to show peoples need for a human connection, no matter how fleeting.
Best to give this one a miss in my opinion.
3/10
I found this Canadian film on Film4. Imagine it is your last night on earth. What would you do? As far as I am aware I have never seen a Canadian film. I know the Southpark writers are Canadian (does that mean Team America: World Police is a Canadian film? Disregard the previous if that is the case.) The description promised "a very different group of individuals with very different ideas of how to face the end" (thanks to IMDB.com). I thought I had to give this a go, it sounded pretty far from your typical Hollywood blockbuster.
My mind wandered as I sat to watch the credits. Seeing the possibilities of a world without hope. People without any fear of a tomorrow that will never come. I saw riotous street gangs, unashamed debauchery and desperate acts from desperate people. Maybe I had just been watching the news too much recently! The idea of a world that you knew was going to end in 6 hours really caught my imagination. People can be bad enough when there is accountability, but take all consequence away...
Well if you take away a Canadian's accountability they go to the supermarket to get ingredients for a last meal, or go round their mums for a mock-up Christmas dinner apparently. I am happy to excuse a films low budget, but a lack of ambition cannot be forgiven. I'm sure some people who have watched this (there must be half a dozen of them on this planet somewhere) will point to the fact that it is an understated look at people's need to find some connection with their fellow man. That not all films need lightening pace, witty dialogue or kooky charm. But in the absence of big bangs and loud explosions you need to have some kind of charm or humour, even a subtle sense of dread to make a film like this work.
10 minutes into this film I was bored. It had none of the above I'm afraid. I wanted to like it but the lead actors lack of any kind of charm made it really difficult to care that the world was about to end. Anyone who has been in Play night club in Swansea will probably know this feeling! The closest thing to a likeable character was ginger love machine Alex who resolves to fulfil all of his ambitions, sexual of course. Ironically he would probably have enjoyed Play.
I feel it is my responsibility to watch a wide variety of films on this little journey, so I am glad I gave this a go and made it to the end, much like the people must have been glad it was ending in this piss boring town (sorry, that was the last bad pun I promise). What started as a great idea shrivelled into a poor attempt to show peoples need for a human connection, no matter how fleeting.
Best to give this one a miss in my opinion.
3/10
Friday 12 August 2011
Super 8 (2011)
Considering my nostalgic mood I got a bit excited when I read about Super 8.
Spielberg produced, directed by that JJ Abrams bloke that did Lost and Startrek! Couldn't be bad could it? Also it was my first trip to the cinema in a depressingly long time. I was starting to feel like a big kid already.
Me and Soph started with possibly my favourite part of going to the cinema... guess the ads! You must have played that as a kid. Watching cluelessly as a loud flashy music video looking stream of images bash your eyeballs. Then you see the brand logo on screen and both shout out FORD!! followed by a few F*%$s and T!£*s as you realise it’s a draw. Never mind, on to the next ad. So after annoying the people around us with our giggles and cursing the film started.
Bloody hell what a slow and depressing start. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Now for the film review bit.
Super 8 is set in 1979 in small town America. It follows high school kid Joe Lamb and his group of misfit friends as they try to make a zombie movie on a Super 8 camcorder. Charles is the bossy Orson Wells wannabe director, Cary the nutty, braces wearing explosives nut and Martin the nice but dim leading man of their little production. I’m sure there was another friend but I can't quite remember what he did... And then there is Alice, troubled and sad, who steals our little Joe's heart.
There is more than a touch of The Goonies about the group, or possibly Stand By Me. The film geeks will instantly spot a couple of flattering homages throughout.
Following the above mentioned slow start the film really begins when the group are out shooting a scene one night and capture a huge train crash on film. Soon their quiet town is swarmed with mysterious air force men and strange goings on.
The main story might annoy a few people but I was too charmed by the boys banter and the films friendly style to care really. It never gets close to the manic boisterousness and pure chemistry of the kids in The Goonies but there are some really good scenes of childish bickering that made me smile.
As the town goes mad and events spiral way past the control of a group of children I really did start to feel for them. Some decent performances from Joe (Joel Courtney) and Alice (Elle Fanning) really hold things together. Also Charles (Riley Griffiths) has some good moments. Stick around while the credits are rolling for probably my favourite part of the film!
There is clearly an attempt by Abrams to pay homage to some great films from the past, for which I salute him. Strands of ET, The Goonies, Stand By Me and Night of the Living Dead among others are obvious yet it never quite captures the magic of these. I did leave the cinema with a smile on my face and a tinge of melancholy nostalgia for a long gone childhood. When you could spend all summer running around obsessed with the latest film you had seen (I wanted to be in Highlander sooo much one time I spent months sparring with bamboo canes with my friend shouting "there can be only one!") The boy’s obsession with making their movie really brought that home.
Far from perfect but very likeable.
7/10.
Spielberg produced, directed by that JJ Abrams bloke that did Lost and Startrek! Couldn't be bad could it? Also it was my first trip to the cinema in a depressingly long time. I was starting to feel like a big kid already.
Me and Soph started with possibly my favourite part of going to the cinema... guess the ads! You must have played that as a kid. Watching cluelessly as a loud flashy music video looking stream of images bash your eyeballs. Then you see the brand logo on screen and both shout out FORD!! followed by a few F*%$s and T!£*s as you realise it’s a draw. Never mind, on to the next ad. So after annoying the people around us with our giggles and cursing the film started.
Bloody hell what a slow and depressing start. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Now for the film review bit.
Super 8 is set in 1979 in small town America. It follows high school kid Joe Lamb and his group of misfit friends as they try to make a zombie movie on a Super 8 camcorder. Charles is the bossy Orson Wells wannabe director, Cary the nutty, braces wearing explosives nut and Martin the nice but dim leading man of their little production. I’m sure there was another friend but I can't quite remember what he did... And then there is Alice, troubled and sad, who steals our little Joe's heart.
There is more than a touch of The Goonies about the group, or possibly Stand By Me. The film geeks will instantly spot a couple of flattering homages throughout.
Following the above mentioned slow start the film really begins when the group are out shooting a scene one night and capture a huge train crash on film. Soon their quiet town is swarmed with mysterious air force men and strange goings on.
The main story might annoy a few people but I was too charmed by the boys banter and the films friendly style to care really. It never gets close to the manic boisterousness and pure chemistry of the kids in The Goonies but there are some really good scenes of childish bickering that made me smile.
As the town goes mad and events spiral way past the control of a group of children I really did start to feel for them. Some decent performances from Joe (Joel Courtney) and Alice (Elle Fanning) really hold things together. Also Charles (Riley Griffiths) has some good moments. Stick around while the credits are rolling for probably my favourite part of the film!
There is clearly an attempt by Abrams to pay homage to some great films from the past, for which I salute him. Strands of ET, The Goonies, Stand By Me and Night of the Living Dead among others are obvious yet it never quite captures the magic of these. I did leave the cinema with a smile on my face and a tinge of melancholy nostalgia for a long gone childhood. When you could spend all summer running around obsessed with the latest film you had seen (I wanted to be in Highlander sooo much one time I spent months sparring with bamboo canes with my friend shouting "there can be only one!") The boy’s obsession with making their movie really brought that home.
Far from perfect but very likeable.
7/10.
They don't make 'em like they used to
I grew up watching films in the 80's. Great films.
Some of my favourite childhood memories involved our giant VCR. I still remember the day my grandfather brought it home. A huge grey slab of flashing lights, whirring and clicking proudly on its perch beneath our TV.
I loved going to the video shop and arguing for 20 minutes with my brother about which film we were going to rent. I loved the fact that you sometimes had to rewind it before you could watch it because some lazy bugger had rented it before you. Then came the trailers... Loved those trailers.
Then best of all a brand new, never before seen, spectacle of wonder and adventure. I know I probably should have gotten out more as a child... But growing up in rainy South Wales meant I always preferred an evening with George Lucas or Steven Speilberg. Let’s face it, it's a lot more fun battling evil empires, discovering hidden treasure and saving the world than being the last kid picked for football down the park on a wet Tuesday evening.
It got me thinking that they just don't make films like they used to. It made me sad that my son would grow up watching the formulated unoriginal drivel that Hollywood seems to churn out today. I feel lost in a shower of remakes, sequels and bloody romcoms starring the latest pretty but vacant fops on the Hollywood conveyor belt. I started wondering if there really were any decent films still being made. If I would ever have another moment like the first time I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark, staring mouth agape as Indy runs from a horde of Incas or laughing as he casually pulls his gun and shoots the master swordsman spinning his blade like a dervish.
I'm setting myself a goal to watch a film a day for the next year, hoping that I can restore my faith in the filmmaker’s powers to entertain and enthral us. It will be a busy year as I have a 9 month old son who demands more attention than his mother, and with my wedding fast approaching it could get hectic.
I'm off to watch Super 8 to kick off this challenge, I will get a write up posted asap.
So if I don't see you, good morning, good afternoon, good evening and good night.
Some of my favourite childhood memories involved our giant VCR. I still remember the day my grandfather brought it home. A huge grey slab of flashing lights, whirring and clicking proudly on its perch beneath our TV.
I loved going to the video shop and arguing for 20 minutes with my brother about which film we were going to rent. I loved the fact that you sometimes had to rewind it before you could watch it because some lazy bugger had rented it before you. Then came the trailers... Loved those trailers.
Then best of all a brand new, never before seen, spectacle of wonder and adventure. I know I probably should have gotten out more as a child... But growing up in rainy South Wales meant I always preferred an evening with George Lucas or Steven Speilberg. Let’s face it, it's a lot more fun battling evil empires, discovering hidden treasure and saving the world than being the last kid picked for football down the park on a wet Tuesday evening.
It got me thinking that they just don't make films like they used to. It made me sad that my son would grow up watching the formulated unoriginal drivel that Hollywood seems to churn out today. I feel lost in a shower of remakes, sequels and bloody romcoms starring the latest pretty but vacant fops on the Hollywood conveyor belt. I started wondering if there really were any decent films still being made. If I would ever have another moment like the first time I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark, staring mouth agape as Indy runs from a horde of Incas or laughing as he casually pulls his gun and shoots the master swordsman spinning his blade like a dervish.
I'm setting myself a goal to watch a film a day for the next year, hoping that I can restore my faith in the filmmaker’s powers to entertain and enthral us. It will be a busy year as I have a 9 month old son who demands more attention than his mother, and with my wedding fast approaching it could get hectic.
I'm off to watch Super 8 to kick off this challenge, I will get a write up posted asap.
So if I don't see you, good morning, good afternoon, good evening and good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)