All my movies reviews, both new and a few older releases.... :D
X-Men: First Classtakes us back in Earth's actual real world history. To reveal an underside to notorious, world changing events which coincide with the earliest days in the history of mutant-kind.Mutants being "homo-superior":Human beings who, as you may or may not already know, manifest uncanny, astonishing, though sometimes horrific, latent abilities at adolescence. Back to the crucialfirst meetings between friends Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr, to the formation of allegiances and first steps on their journey's.Aligning itself with the films that have gone before, but were set in "the modern day" 21st century...
.jpg)
This new movie starts by going even further back: Returning those familiar with the series, to scenes at a Nazi concentration camp, in 1944: a young boy watches his parents being led away to the gas chambers; whilst in New York USA, another boy disturbs an intruder in his family's stately manor home. A homeless little blue girl, able to disguise herself as anyone she needs to, to feed and shelter herself. Picking up thatprologue to the first X-Men movie, where Erik first discovers his powers of metals was a sequence which had immediately made it clear this was a different kind of super-hero movie back in 2000. In filling in some of the gaps we've wondered about ever since, as it's starting point, Vaughn's film reminds us thatthese film's are actually about something tangible. And that once upon a time, not that long ago, theX-Menfranchise looked set to conquer popular culture....
Bryan Singer's superbX-Men (2000)lit a fuse upon release. So successful, rich, thrilling, full of humanity and pathos that SUPER-HERO properties were being greenlit, left right and centre in it's wake. What's more, with creative forces steering the ships that had a real affinity for each. Singer revisited Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters, with the even betterX2:X-Men United (2002),before taking leave to go play in the Warner/DC comics sandpit. What happened next, to the movie incarnation of the most popular, ground-breaking team in comics, is painful to recall.X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)directed by Brett Ratner, was a right dog's dinner of a film. Illogical, ham-fisted, criminal in it's handling of both story and a loyal, talented expanded cast. What's worse, iteffectively slammed the door on the saga on it's way out. The film took money, yeah...but almost under-false pretences. It's taken 5 years, and one successful, if "marmite-like" spin-off movie for the Wolverinecharacter, for the "children of the atom" to fly again!
So it's finally here...they did it, and we have it!A new, full blooded X-movie. Bryan Singer returned to the X-Men, this time as co-producer, withthe acclaimed team of Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman, directing and writing.Audiences are being tempted to fall into line by whizz-bang TV spots, stunning posters and an unmistakeable theme song from Take That. In case the spell's still not worked on you, and you still have doubt, let me whisper the happy news: "relax...jaded movie fan, because it's safe to look again now....."
X-Men: First Class (XM:FC) stands as a mighty return to the halcyon days of Singer's films...If anything, bettering their scope, their scale and their impact.In time perhaps a definitive X-Men movie. Standing as a "prequel", but offering a freshness and easy jumping on point ideal for those who've never seen one of this series before.Bursting with renewed energy and bristling with the kind of SFX that audiences demandof a film of this nature. A hungry new cast of mostly acclaimed unknowns, inhabiting characters who as much as they're not like us, speak and act with a truth you only find in the best written of drama. Thescript delivering a much deeper excavation into the central themeswhich remain at the heart of the X-Men's appeal, in their original medium to this day. It's colourful too though...! Bright and bold, proud of it's roots and all the more fun because of it.
XM:FCisn't afriad to mix light with the shade, and still manages to push it's message and our emotional buttons.Vaughn and Goldmanwere the duo behind the movie adaptations of firstlyNeil Gaiman's Stardustnovel then they broughtMark Millar's powerfulmini-seriesKick-Assto the big screen. Both films showed a "KONG-like" grip of the source material, as well as sensitivity in re-imagining such acquired tastes, for broader audiences. This midas touch hasn't escaped them onXM:FC. People will describe this as a miraculous return to form for the series, but it's evident that is the product of the hard work of very talented and intuitive people rather than chance.
The story boasts vivid characters, varied locations and set-pieces informed by the likes ofGoldfinger and Thunderball and some likewise influenced sets. There's suped up submarine bases, covert military installations and the sleazy leather and lace of the "Hellfire Club". Underneath the digital make-ups, CGI and showboating, the strength of the dialogue and dilemma's facing these people seems like it could almost have really happened. Juxtaposing against world historyadds relevance and poignancyand alongside authentic production design,brings the early 60's political and social history, back to life. Music is anthemic and celebratrory. With fanfares, in as style unheard since John Williams Superman theme.
It's a tremendous cast too, and unfair to single anyone out. Still people will no doubt be wondering, so I must say James McAvoyis brilliant at playing all sides to Charles Xavier.Instantly taking the role for his own, rather than offering an impersonation ( Mr McGregor, I'm looking at you!) Kevin Baconproves a dominating, fascinating bad guy as Sebastian Shaw. A former Nazi, looking to use the missle crisis in Cuba as cover to initiate a war between humans, which will make it easier for mutant-kind to rise to dominance.Jennifer Lawrence impressesas Charles's vulnerable, impressionable "adopted sister", Raven and any opportunity to seeRose Byrnein anything, is good. The fact she spends a good ten minutes in her underwear...? Even better. Still, if there's abreakout starfrom XM:FC it has to beMichael Fassbender, who here plays Erik. He's scene stealing and hypnotic as this most complex of anti-heroes. Adequate compensation, for those missing Wolverine.
Thechoice of characters, pulled from across the decades of the comics, creates a variety of imagery and spectacle but seems carefully judged. Some get the thinner end of the wedge, though they're probably the ones who there's most scope in exploring should the planned sequels happen, as they're embedded deeper ito the comics mythos. In balancing all thisXM:FC falls into none of the traps which befell that last film, instead guaranteeing a bright new future for this comer of Marvel Comics universe, on screen. As this isvery much Erik and Charles film, even when they're not on screen their relationship is driving the story. One with a beginning, middle and satisfying conclusion. Well, as much as you'd wish it to anyway.
It may seem easy, just throwing such bouquets in the direction of this film. I'm an old comics fan, with fondness for this way of storytelling. For reflections of real-life in the larger than life and the sometimessubtle as bricks analogies which inform these modern folklores.Perhaps not everyone WILL love this film...let alone, adore as much as I did? But I can guarantee that there is a somethingfor everyone here. It's accessible, in a way even the best of the earlier films weren't, yet is as intelligent, true to the original heart of the X-Men mythology. Just as X-Men (2000) was a great thriller in it's own right,this is a standout adventure film.It's not for children, I feel I must stress.Though it's received a 12A certification here in the UK, I consider that debateable. Some will find it upsetting andthere is content some parents may not be comfortable with.
XM:FCwas a pleasure to spend two hours with. I'm sure will be equally enjoyable on further watches and it's just as great a pleasure to review for you today. When the only negative you have for a movie is that the title sequence at the end of the film isso gorgeously animatedin true James Bond style, with it's 60's Maurice Binder inspired patterns and colours, thatit should've been at the front end.......?Well, you know you've enjoyed yourself andthat X-Men: First Class is worthy of an "A"...maybe even with distinctions.Oh, just go and see it...!!!!X-Men: First Class is on general release NOW, and set for a DVD/Blu-ray release later in the year - 5/5: Keep reading and scrolling, for my REVISED look through the history of the X-Men. How a suprise hit mini-series led to this project...
So what do those additional words mean, added as a subtitle to this latest X-movie...? What makes this production so different, and so special..? Well, the title derives from a fairly recent line of comics which have proven popular. A series which coincided with 20th century Fox and Marvel Studio's desire to take this franchise back through it's own mythology. In a new-ish direction, though not to unrecognisable proportions. After all it'll still be about mutant superheroes, "sworn to protect a world that fears them" but a reset button , similar to that of the most recent STAR TREK movie, is being pressed.....
By effectively curtailing the series into some sort of trilogy, withX-Men: The Last Stand, back in 2006 (...yes, it REALLY has been that long!!) Fox kind of killed their own cash cow in the process. As well as cutting off something yet to reach it's full creative potential and cultural significance.The first two films, clearly bedding something down that could've been/should've been built to last, only for the third to put the toys away again. You'd be forgiven for thinking that had been the final word on and there probably wasn't anything left to say. After all, why else would that last film abandon the pathos, characterisation and...well, just plain class, of it's predecessors to throw as many fireworks and new characters at the screen as it could manage...?Anyone who's ever regularly read any of Marvel's "X titles", in the nicest possible way, knows better.Whilst Marvel have spoilt the broth somewhat in the pages of X-Men books, HUGE events and deaths/resurrections happening yearly, that's not really what the comics truly do at their best. That's the case with a huge percentage of comics, to be fair, but traditionally X-Men is more built for it than others. Or more accurately, wasrebuilt. I'll explain...
By effectively curtailing the series into some sort of trilogy, withX-Men: The Last Stand, back in 2006 (...yes, it REALLY has been that long!!) Fox kind of killed their own cash cow in the process. As well as cutting off something yet to reach it's full creative potential and cultural significance.The first two films, clearly bedding something down that could've been/should've been built to last, only for the third to put the toys away again. You'd be forgiven for thinking that had been the final word on and there probably wasn't anything left to say. After all, why else would that last film abandon the pathos, characterisation and...well, just plain class, of it's predecessors to throw as many fireworks and new characters at the screen as it could manage...?Anyone who's ever regularly read any of Marvel's "X titles", in the nicest possible way, knows better.Whilst Marvel have spoilt the broth somewhat in the pages of X-Men books, HUGE events and deaths/resurrections happening yearly, that's not really what the comics truly do at their best. That's the case with a huge percentage of comics, to be fair, but traditionally X-Men is more built for it than others. Or more accurately, wasrebuilt. I'll explain...
TheX-Men comic book started life in late 1963, a creation of legendary writer Stan Lee alongside artist Jack Kirby.These two guys created practically all the mainstays of the Marvel Comics over an incredibly short period of time. Just in case you don't know the drill, it's about a Professor Charles Xavier who creates a haven and seat of learning in a mansion, just outside of New York. Existing solely to train children who have developed extra abilities in adolescence. Originally recruiting Scott, Jean, Henry, Bobby and Warren....and giving them customary codenames of Cyclops, Marvel Girl, The Beast, Iceman and Angel.
A "mutant" himself, Charles has discovered these powers hail from an "x-gene", missing in homo-sapiens.His long term goal is to help those affected to harness their abilities, support and protect them whilst building an understanding between the world at large and this "homo-superior". It's all even harder than it sounds in the face of racial prejudice and fear, plus there's other mutants out there undoing all his hard work! Wreaking havoc, raising tensions, using those powers for personal gain etc. Some even quickening what they view as the rightful passing of the earth into their hands as the next stage in evolution.That first issue of their comic also introduced arch enemy and occasional collaborator, Magnetowho would continue to be crucial and personification of an opposite to Xavier's ideals. He can also kick some serious ass!!
So far so good, and yes the comic provided mostly riffs on the standard plots of the age and medium. Never really taking flight and joining the top tier of Marvel comics roster, such as the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man. In fact,The X-Men eventually got cancelled at issue #93, due to general apathy toward their exploits.
A "mutant" himself, Charles has discovered these powers hail from an "x-gene", missing in homo-sapiens.His long term goal is to help those affected to harness their abilities, support and protect them whilst building an understanding between the world at large and this "homo-superior". It's all even harder than it sounds in the face of racial prejudice and fear, plus there's other mutants out there undoing all his hard work! Wreaking havoc, raising tensions, using those powers for personal gain etc. Some even quickening what they view as the rightful passing of the earth into their hands as the next stage in evolution.That first issue of their comic also introduced arch enemy and occasional collaborator, Magnetowho would continue to be crucial and personification of an opposite to Xavier's ideals. He can also kick some serious ass!!
So far so good, and yes the comic provided mostly riffs on the standard plots of the age and medium. Never really taking flight and joining the top tier of Marvel comics roster, such as the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man. In fact,The X-Men eventually got cancelled at issue #93, due to general apathy toward their exploits.
X-Men existed solely in reprints for over 3 years, until revived, refocused, recast and thus re-energised in a standalone special. This was the legendaryGIANTX-MEN #1 in 1975, followed by brand new issues from #94.The central premise remained the same, but the characters involved had a more international make-up and were somewhat older, therefore more adept at using their "gifts". This isconsidered very much a GOLDEN ERA for not only this series, but comics generally, and the run from #94 to #200, remains collectable, influencial and much-loved to this day.
Some were brought over from the old run into the expanded cast, and Cyclops remained their leader, but the new team was bolstered by 6 new names.Most notably Wolverine or Logan. In time he'd arguably become the signature character for the whole saga.Under the guidance of artists DaveCockrumand John Byrne and writers Neal Adams, then Chris Claremont, theX-Men achieved success and status that had eluded them before. In a a few short years becoming the flagship series of Marvel Comics.
The re-christened regular book, nowThe UNCANNYX-Men, was the first to truly become an "ongoing". In the narrative sense I mean, with the ongoing, developing character arcs for each of the roster.Often compared to a "soap opera", as a relatable short-hand for those out there who never "got it" where comic books were concerned. There were supporting characters who weren't just standard comic book baddies or victims together with a feeling of the cultural, political landscape the comic was taking place against. An aspect which hadn't, perhaps couldn't, really been embraced in the earlier version. Nothing against the other books that Marvel or anyone else was putting out, it's just that they weren't as built for the task as this was. Though many would follow suit, and adjust their balance.
Some were brought over from the old run into the expanded cast, and Cyclops remained their leader, but the new team was bolstered by 6 new names.Most notably Wolverine or Logan. In time he'd arguably become the signature character for the whole saga.Under the guidance of artists DaveCockrumand John Byrne and writers Neal Adams, then Chris Claremont, theX-Men achieved success and status that had eluded them before. In a a few short years becoming the flagship series of Marvel Comics.
The re-christened regular book, nowThe UNCANNYX-Men, was the first to truly become an "ongoing". In the narrative sense I mean, with the ongoing, developing character arcs for each of the roster.Often compared to a "soap opera", as a relatable short-hand for those out there who never "got it" where comic books were concerned. There were supporting characters who weren't just standard comic book baddies or victims together with a feeling of the cultural, political landscape the comic was taking place against. An aspect which hadn't, perhaps couldn't, really been embraced in the earlier version. Nothing against the other books that Marvel or anyone else was putting out, it's just that they weren't as built for the task as this was. Though many would follow suit, and adjust their balance.
It was this world, andway of telling "superhero" stories which director Bryan Singer brought us in his original film "X-MEN" in 2000.AnX-Men film had been in development for much of the preceding decade. It's eventual, massive success had a rejuvenating power to a genre of movie which was seemingly stuck in a rut (...witness Batman and Robin (1997) A chain of events which seems, with hindsight, like it was just waiting to happen..!A long running X-Men cartoon had paved the way, but the majority of ticket buyers had still no real preconceived ideas as to what these characters were about or what made the material so different. Of ocurse there's not a single pair of underpants or a swooning love interest in sight!! So they certainly didn't look like super-heroes, and what is "X-Men"..? Sounds like something you'd book for a hen night, right!?.A decade on, the word "mutant" has entered the public consciousness,most people you show a picture of Hugh Jackman to will recognise him as Wolverineand veteranthespPatrick Stewart is assynonamouswith ProfessorXas he was with Captain Jean Luc-Picard. Singer would raise the bar again, two years later, with the stunning"X2", orX-Men United, as it was known in some countries.
A further sequel, the aforementioned"X-Men: The Last Stand",this time with BrettRatnerat the helm, followed in 2006. Finally last year there was"X-Men Origins:Wolverine",directed by Brit Gavin Hood. Serving as a sideways prequel of sorts, and itself with a sequel well into the planning stages.
After time away from the franchise, Bryan Singer has returned as producer, bringing director Matthew Vaughn, of Stardust and Kick-Ass fame (.. how brilliant was that film!!!?) on board. God willing, to restore prestige and popularity to the movies and hopefully create the next evolution in superhero movies in equal measure. To my mind, they've met that challenge completely.
Taking it's lead from the comic of the same name,X-Men: FirstClass returns to the earliest days of Xavier's dreamn for peacfeul co-existence. The comic book version being very much a back-to-basics series, telling stories based around the original line-up, back in their late teens, albeit wearing more 21st century threads! A chance to see versions of characters, including other stalwarts of Marvel comics, from an earlier age given a modern voice, whilst being less bogged down in 40 odd years of story.
Thefilm version follows suit,moving back, in continuity. In this case most of those characters present in earlier films would be too young or not even born at all in the time period. So it will be inline with the previous films rather than being an actual adaptation.In place of Cyclops, Jean and Angel will be new characters. Well, I say new, they're new to movie audiences, but in actuality drawn from the full 40 year history of the books.For example, we have Cyclops older brother Alex "Havok" Summers as the lead student, alongside Banshee and other familiar names but we also get to meet NightCrawler's father Azrael, who's been a relatively recent addition to the supporting cast in the comic.
I believed the time is tight for this reinvigoration of the franchise.Sure enough there's spectacle, intelliegnce, humour and the real drama which Singers films had. Once you add the whole retro angle, including a more traditional super hero look to the uniforms,X-Men:FC becomes unique, unmissable as event cinema.
As for the X-Men legacy itself, well it continues to evolve and that original comic series has ran for over 500 issues. There's plenty of scope for more movies, should sucessive creative teams seek to create something as timeless for the big screen as the page...WATCH FOR CONTINUING COVERAGE OF COMICS AND MOVIES, plus the cartoon versions of the X-MEN, here...!
For this live action debut forthe mainstay of western comics, his ugly origins have been boldly retained and used as the point of entry. A reality of introducing a hero like this to potential ticket-buyers and a language we all understand. Still a tough balance needed to strike to avoid stimulating that part of the brain that let's on we may have seen it all before.How you make one distinct from another..?particularly with a mass translation of comic properties to film.The shortest answer: not like this.. Jonah Hex (JH) fails to make goodon the sophisticated, acclaimed and cinematic stories and scope present in the most recent comic book adventures, that's a certainty. If of limited relevance to the average viewer, when you acknowledge its alsofails as a piece of entertainment, in it's own right. The blame for that could lay in one of 2 or 3 laps. The film was notoriously chopped down, mucked about...then practically smothered at the box-office, stateside. So much so, itonly received a limited releasein other territories and quickly scheduled for DVD release. Even by the standards Jimmy Hayward's film sets for itself, it's hard to come up to scratch in the face of all that. At leastJosh Brolin makes for a superb Jonah Hex. I doubt anyone could've delivered a better take on the cynical old crow, even with some of the cornier lines. He plays it straight too, despite the bravado, pumped up action and unimaginative, by numbers, score.Michael Fassbender, thankfully to become much more famous as Magneto in the X-Men: First Class, is the most interesting of the other faces. Fassbender desperately tries to make henchmanBurkecome alive, with only marginal success. Of course the big draw ofJHwasFHMfavourite Megan Fox, in THAT basque and stockings from the posters. It's all there and as marvellous as ever, but Fox is so obviously dis-engaged from her part. Having said that, it's hard to direct much fire towards her adorable ears, as the material is so thankless and almost exploitative.Like Malkovich, she's there solely for the paycheque. I feel JHcould've been good with more meat on the bones, and a chance forBrolinto really bring all sides to Hex to life. Visually, some of it does work, and the weapon Turnbull is directing at various tactical locations to gain power, is as bonkers as you could wish. Surface gloss, and little consolation. JHhad been originally created for DC comics in the early 70'sand his adventures continued into the next decade. Regular stories recommenced in the mid-00's, penned by folks who really had an affinity for the character. Enough to tap into the possibilities of thatdistinct time period, imagery and prospects for black comedyin the stories you could use Hex's journey and psyche to tell. He's a figure that has endured, because of his less than sunny disposition (likeWolverinemaybe) and his unmistakeable, tragic appearance. There are no masks, quirky sidekicks of brightly coloured outfits in Hex's wardrobe:he's the flipside to The Lone Ranger.That was the world which a movie should've had the balls to bring to the masses, rather than this retread ofThe Crow. JH comes from thesame stable who make the CRANK movies, but even Neveldine and Taylor jumped this ship due to studio interference and demand JH stuck to safer ground. A few scenes exist of the film that could've been where theconcepts of Hex's unique connection with the dearly, recently departedare realised. It's eerie, teasing the imagination but moved past at record time to keep us dead on track for the inevitable annihilation of Hex's prey. I honestly think that a big percentage of people, especially if you watch a lot of movies, don't mind the fact that they may have been sold essentially the same story as they've seen a few times before. Who hasn't thumbed through the telly guide, or shuffled through our DVD shelves muttering "...I fancy a "slug-fest", a "stalk and slash" or a "rom-com"...? What'sannoying and frustrating about JH, in principal is ten years since on from Singers X-Men and then Raimi's Spidey films,this more leftfield character and those like it,are those comics readers would've wished to make this transition to screen by now. To prove the versatility and high levels of creativity existing within modern, and even pretty mainstream comic books. Perhaps even push more folks to start stopping off at a local SF store, or slip one into their Amazon.com basket for try out.Movies like JH add more ammo to the arsenal of those who are confident there's nothing of relevance left for comics to bring to other medium, or depth to anyone who's left adolescence.- 2/5
The mythology of almost everypulp character, has long been formed on the bedrock of a simple desire for"revenge".Comic books, most famously "The Batman" have returned to this theme to underpin the adventures of their finest caped crusaders, time and time again.Jonah Hex, as grizzled, scarred and jaded as an anti hero could be, is no different.
Hex is offered a clean slate! His crimes to be pardoned by the President of the united States, if he hunts and killsQuentin Turnbull, played by a bored silly,John Malkovich.Turnbull is a feared, wanted terrorist with a massive weapon at his disposal and also the guy who put Hex in this foulest of moods in the first place.Such a it's a win-win situation, it's amazing the movie retains any of the drama it actually manages. Once it's revealed that reports of Turnbull's earlier demise had been premature, anything resembling plot is absent from the rest of Jonah Hex.Seeing as he's played by the biggest name in the thing, even that couldn't pass for an actual surprise.
It's as much for the mainstays and cliches, that draw us to such action. A certainreassurance in knowing, up to a point, what you're going to get!So long as they've been diverted and entertained throughout their time in the seated position. As such there are cases wherethat inevitabilityproves immensely satisfying (...I'm thinking of the classicDeath Wish, or the more recent Liam Neeson starring thrillerTaken)In those cases though, there's enough else going on, both within the outer beats of the story, and the main characters head and plenty room for it all to ferment. In comparison, JH just comes across slapdash.
In 2009,BAFTAaward winning duo James Corden and Matthew Horne, stepped up their domination of UK popular culture with this excursion into cinemas. Here playing hapless "best mates" Jimmy and Fletch, venturing to a small village of Cragwich in Norfolk, for thissuper-natural, adventure-comedy romp...!!But I suppose you got that from the title, right...? I have to say " I suppose" there because there were plenty out there, some of whom review films for most distinguished of organs, seemingly startled by this discovery....
In fact it will escaped the knowledge of very few reading this, thatLesbian Vampire Killers (LVK)met with a tsunami of bad-will and negativity upon release, and reviews which did nothing above point out the obvious. As such it's difficult to come to it without tasting a stigma. Then there is the slow though all all too common realisation with even the best comedy movie, thatif you've seen the trailer to this film, you have already seen all the good/funny bits. There's never much left in reserve, soare you just as well watching the trailer again, and saving the other 79 minutes of your life for something more life-enriching...?
The answer to that depends on what you want from entertainment and the context you may find yourself watching a movie titledLesbian Vampire Killers. It's no big surpriseLVK proves amongst theblokiestof blokey films,you could imagine. Serving up that brand of innuendo and toilet humour that even post American Pie, remains somehow British. A parade of young women are seen as no more than window dressing: leered at and playthings of the leads and plot. Enough reason for some to not just dislike LVK, but topositively demonise it. The only thing tooffset any offensewhich could be caused is thein built appeal and likeabilityof Corden and Horne. Which they bring from past projects and a fan base of both genders.That isn't going to work for everyone, it goes without saying.
In one respect you'd think this couldn't fail. Undoubtedly what Alliance Studios thought, to greenlight the thing, after LVK had spent some time in development as a Hammer production. Its thoseHammer and Amicus Studios horror and adventure films of decades past, which LVK is an affectionate, modern day, send up of.Checklist at the readyfor the unwelcoming pub regulars, intense man of the cloth, crucifixes, virgins, graveyards, ivy, stakes, log cottages and prophecies. On top of that, the film may want to be a broader stable mate toAn American Werewolf in London, but it owes just as much to the lore of old Scooby -Doocartoons. None of these choices, make it a bad film either.
Okay Hadley, you may ask: so why was it so derided upon release,when it's not that heinous after all....?Well,it's far from brilliant and doesn't play on any level other than the screamingly obvious one.Asking for it, you could argue. Still, there's another factor which plays even heavier. I'd offer that Corden and Horne had been the darlings of the media, due to themassively popular, acclaimed sitcom "Gavin & Stacey". However, an iffy evening hosting the accursedBrit Awardsand an only marginally funny sketch showhad followed, leaving them sitting targets for the tabloids to be taken down a peg or two. They'd definitelyfallen from favour, by the time LVK openedand the UK media is notoriously intolerant of talent daring to cross over into another media, or territory, even in fairest weather.
The phrase"guilty pleasure" is one we hear thrown around, so muchin modern media culture. So much so it has, like "jumping the shark",lost it's meaning a little.We live in an age where programme and movie makers will announce and almost market the product of their labour as " a guilty pleasure" (nauseating TV show Glee, a prime example) I believe that a true guilty pleasure MUSTbe one that's happened unwittingly, whilst those involved have aimed for something else. By this measure, LVK stands as a textbook example.
The reason these two achieved a place in the nations hearts, is still abundantly clear. They're both gifted actors and have great chemistry together. Ideal for this kind of movie.James Corden does fat, randy and gormless as well as anyoneyou could mention, with a great line in panic and disdain.Matt Horne, though very much the straight man, holds his end up more than well and has that everyman quality to him which endeared so much as the drippy, though noble Gavin. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that these two aren't comedians.Cordenand Horne are seasoned, well reviewed actors in their own rights. Whilst LVK DOES deliberately see them recreate the "types" they'd each become loved for, it's a broader humour than before. Supporting cast is mostly made up of said Lesbian Vampires, throwing themselves into the thankless writhing and lurching. Aside from that,Paul McGannis a good sport. TheWithnail and IandDoctor Whostar, playing it straight (or as straight as one can with that facial hair) as the localVampire hunting vicar. There's precious little development of any characters....they're either food for the vampires, or not ultimately.
It's seen a lazy thing to do when reviewing films to liken to a"Carry On.." movie. Those British comedies which informed and subverted a whole generations perception of world history, the "birds and the bee's", and lampooned other movie genres.That's mostly true, but in this case I'm going to do it anyway.Because as much as that was bouncing breasts, uncertain sexuality and the war of the genders, it also represents something more subtle and specific. Thatever so British, celebration of ineptitude.We as a national mindset, thrown around the globe, through history and geography, fact and fiction. A company of actors all playing to a type, as the two leads do here. A charming ability, nay insistence to laugh at ourselves which I saw fleetingly here.Most obviously in a nice scene where Fletch (Corden) is practising his swing with a blade. Giving himself a pep-talk, to face the Vampire Queen. A sceneI could see Kenneth Connor playing 40+ years ago, exactly the same, and thatwarmed me to LVK.
Whatever else you can say LVK looks like a MOVIE, not a TV movie. Director Paul Claydondoes some startling things, and the colour palette, special effects and production design is a couple of notches up from expectation. I loved the comic book page turns and semi-animated captions in a "pulp horror" font, adding atmosphere whilst not getting pretentious. On the negative side though,the script tries too hard to keep the laughs coming and make sure the lower denominator remains engaged.Story wise, the momentum flagsat exactly the point you need it to hold. Running dry of funny before story to tell, and whilst there are belly laughs,LVK is never hilarious. Sliding from simply manic, to almost desperate to wrap up. So much that it proves impossible to sustain any real presence or threat from late introduction of a Vampire Queen.
Still, one far from irrelevant fact remains: LVK accomplishes what it sets out to. It'sfunny!!and that's still all Ineedof comedy movies. Of course no one from The Guardian was seriously going give it that, let alone dare to advise you watch with a beer. If you'venot enjoyed Horne and Corden's other projects, there's not the slightest chance this will make you a fan. Similarly, if you haven't got THAT sensibility, and familiarity with the tropes the film is sending up,it will come across even less clever then it is.
Speaking purely for myself, I've not got a problem with folks making films like this. Though that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like them to be better. I'm not even going to predict LVK will take on cult-statusafforded to such as Withnail and I or the beautiful Shaun Of the Dead ( whose success, no doubt got this ball rolling) in the years to come.It's too broad and mainstream for that.I do suspect it'll grow on people though, particular when airing regular on multi-channel TV and once the dust has settled and Horne and Corden are forgiven for their previous saturated-presence. -2.5/5
A couple of months ago I had the pleasure of viewingtheir remake of Let the Right One In, and emerged from the end credits hopeful of a renaissance for the legendary (sometimes even for the right reasons!!) British film studio.Wake Woodis one of the subsequent projects they've been involved in, and is much more ofa blast form their own pastin comparison.
Wake Wood(WW) follows as a 90 minute, more traditional and considerably cheaper, schl-ocker. A simple (well, for this genre) story fitted out with many calling cards of other, better films. Nevertheless,promising a visceral, exploration of loss and a modern slanton the notion of hardy pagan themes and taboo's.
Upon their movements about the local community, as it's new vet and chemist, Patrick and Louise become aware that "all isn't as it seems". Not least of all because there only appears to be about 8 people who live in the town. There's much whispering in corners, and knowing looks on faces. Following a couple of unlikely but convenient events, they find themselves back atArthur'sfarm. Turns out he's some sort of pagan Jimmy Saville. There Louise sees the tail end of some inexplicable bloody ritual, being performed. When they return home, in time for Newsnight, there's the sinister Arthur again, sat in their armchair looking all...well, sinister!Soon they're made an offer they should probably refuse, to return their late daughter to life. Would you believe me if I told you that's when things start to getREALLY silly....?
There arecertain intriguing conditionsto the return of their much missed child:a time limit of three days, and the solemn vow that neither of them will ever leave the community of Wake Wood. Then there's the little girl herself. Once returned, she's staring into the middle distance a lot, is never without her rain coat ( just in case we're ever in danger of forgettingNicholas Roeg's classic film "Don't Look Now")and has insisted they bringanother massive dog into their family home!One of many twists, turns and inconsistencies in the characters, which will have parents watching this turn to each other, exclaiming "....eh...?"Of course there are more sinister forces at play in WW and the bodies are due to start piling up. Little Alice isn't as she seems and the specific balance and guidelines ofthe rituals could've been interferedwith. The grieving parents vulnerability, preyed upon.
I shouldn't be too hard on WW. It's very clear what classic genre films, from both the UK and the US, they're trying to emulate. The step away from the mundane of stalk and slash, which dominates "scary movies", should be applauded. It's equally clear that directorDavid Keating, has an eye for drawing the best out of the grimmest, most unremarkable locations and tiniest spaces. The pulsingwind farm which dominates the skyline near the village, stands out as really effective a presence in itself. Obviously artificial andman made, as opposed to theforests and moss covered stone tablesof WW's lineage, yet tapping into the elemental forces which form cornerstones of pagan belief.
As regards scares, which is let's face it, what the HAMMER brand trades onand what anyone picking up this movie will look for, based on cover or just title alone.:In places, it works. Approaching creepy, and thought-provoking, and Keating employs restraint. There's a scene where Patrick must put down a bull, which is startling and subtle. As if it really has something to say about the circle of life with all the soil, cocoons and twigs and transient life energy. Similarly on the necessity of grief and acceptance, which Arthur and his cohorts are perverting.
Then on the other hand, the apple cart is regularly up-turned andcertain scenes are milked so much for any opportunity for gore.It cheapens proceedings. I'm sure additional blood has been CGI-ed in occasionally, on top of the prosthetics and way after the fact. Call me squeamish if you like, but I think any movie which features a 9 year old girl mutilated by a massive dog within the first 5 minutes isdesperatefor our attention. It doesn't end there:WW incessantly shows us considerably more than we need to see. It's director shooting himself in the foot when trying to work up something resembling plausibility.
AidenGillan and Eva Birthistle( as Patrick and Louise) work hard to try and ground proceedings, or at least course-correct from the purest tosh. To make me believe in the plight of two haunted parents, struggling to relate to one another even. But when working with material sounder-written, it's to no avail. WW never really asserts an identity of it's own, deliveringa solitary surprisein the whole of the last half hour. If Hammer's motivation was to make something so deliberately old fashioned and two-dimensional, then fair play. Things do start to get interesting; characters achieve growth and questions formed in my mind at a couple of junctions, then we're fired right into the scramblingabsurdity of the final act. Proceedingsjust get dafter and dafter until there's nothing solid left to suspend any disbelief from...or feel anything one way or another.
The supporting cast includesTim Spall,formerly of Auf Wiedersehn Pet. He's the requisite familiar face/noted character actor of a certain age. Spall isn't entirely unsuccessful in bringing some menace to the role of Arthur, the standard village patriarch.9 year old Aliceis played byElla Connolly. A capable actress, with the desired, other-worldly look.Some of the things they get her to act out, are just plain crass, but Connolly performs well. I hope she goes onto do good things, but isn't the novelty value of primary school girls behaving like this, wearing a touch thin now?
Wake Woodis a derivative film, but one not without it's good points: the definition of50/50. It doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as those it's chosen to keep so in mind (The Wicker Manindeed! ) It's more a glorified TV movie really. Reminding me of Sunday evenings as a child, staying up just that little bit past bedtime to seeTales of the Unexpected or Hammer's House Of Horroron ITV. WW may prove a worthwhile step on the road to making films that are memorable in their own right, for Keating and Hammer. For a viewer..? There's worse ways of spending a night by the fire, just keep your tongue, at least half in cheek. -2.5/5
Ever-rising star of TV's Arrested Development and the movie Juno,Michael Cera,took on the title role in this comic book adaptation, released last year. More exciting was the news it wasdirected by Edgar Wright. A talent beloved by genre and comedy fans alike following his path over the last decade. From much missed comedy series forChannel 4, SPACED,Wright followed that by developing, with buddies Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, bothShaun Of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Directing with a flair, charm and scale which made both appear slicker than a great amount of projects with much larger budgets and credentials. They were reverent yet cocked sligh winks to their chosen source materials, and hugely relevant to a mass audience. That's a lot ofgoodwill that Wright has as "cash in the bank"for further projects. The other side to that coin, naturally is the fair amount ofexpectationcoming with it.
Drumming my fingers on the desk, as I think this through now...ahemmmm...okay....it's like this....You know when someone flirts with you, really very obviously.....? And it's flattering, you LIKE it, andit's funand you may even flirt back! 'Cos u you like some of the same stuff and they'reprettyand all.....?? Even though, despite all those things,you just don't fancy them ? With me so far..?? Good, cos that's exactly what my evening watchingScott Pilgrim Vs The World (SP)was like.
SP is a very pretty film, I won't dab feint praise here. In fact, a contender forthe most visually arresting, exciting and vibrant movie of the last few years.Trumping more obvious, perhaps larger leaps in what is technologically possible (ie. theAvatarsof this world) by taking us as an audience inside the action, or maybe even drawing theaction around us..?Certain moments, and scenes made me giddy with their audacity yet they'rebeautifulto the point of near-arousal. How Wright moves his characters, and keeps them completely visable, is a massive evolution of what Sam Raimi could get a masked Spider-Man to perform, less than a decade ago.It IS worth watching this film for alone, if you share my inclinations and I'm not suprised that the Blu-ray release, in particular, has sold so well. However, if you wish for more substance underneath the style, you could come away dissatisfied as I also was.
The story itself is quietly, quite brilliant. Derived from a series of graphic novels by a guy called Bryan Lee O'Malley, and based around the simple, time honoured tradition of "boy meets girl". Scott is a young musician, who crosses paths with his "dream girl",Ramona Flowers(just one of the many wonderful emo-friendlynames which give it so much texture) Scott pretty much hits a wall trying to woe this girl via conventional means, learning that Ramona comes with baggage and then some...! In this case, taking the form ofseven, psychotic "evil exes", all disgruntled in some way.....and all standing between Pilgrim and his hearts desire.
The books have been big sellers in relative terms. A movie has been planned since the first, of theeventual 6 books in the series, was released, with Wright himself joining the project some years in. It's easy to see why any creative would be attracted to the project, just as on paper the story could be for everyone.Most of us will be able to relate, if not to Scott himself, than perhaps toRamona..ormaybe Knives...or....etc Offsetting this though, and rather holding the film incarnation back is a structure that falls considerably short of being natural or organic. I get that the idea was to get real people to act out an anime/console level-game hybrid, in real backdrops as opposed to purely virtual ones, but it compromises the telling of the tale.That should always be the driving force of any movie project, whether it seeks to serve a broader audience or a cult-y one. SP cost too much too make, and features too starry a cast to be almost alienating, so deliberately.
The supporting cast all look their parts! Ranging from total unknowns who make notable impressions (Ellen Wong and Kieran Culkinas Scott's own ex girl-friend, and his current roommate respectively) to more rising stars like Winstead and Jason Schwartzman(Gideon Gordon Graves)The inclusion ofsuper hero actorslike former Superman, Brandon Routh, former Torch and incoming Cap: Chris Evans PLUS past Punisher: Tom Jane, is fun!
Within the first couple of minutes there's akiller linefrom Scott's band mate Kim"...if your life had a face, I'd punch it.."As soon as I heard that, I thought this was going to be a memorable and distinctive script. It wasn't that long after where it became clearer thatthere isn't a script really to speak of. More like a series of lines that the actors have to say, simply as a middle ground to getting them repeated and emblazoned across T-shirts.
When it gets to the the slower, character based scenes, SP is again found wanting. Those quieter moments become emotionally flat and lose their worth in the grander scheme. Seemed to me no one is connecting the dots, maybe even in the performances. Was Mary Elizabeth Winsted's Romana really supposed to be quite so uninteresting...? I mean, I get that the idea was maybe weweren't supposed to understandwhat Scott sees in this thoroughly dull, fickle person..(at least I hope that was the intention!) Recreating what passes through a group of friends when one of their number seems to, almost inexplicable start a relationship with someone we never would've picked for them in a million years. Still, for that to really work i this context, on screen; for us to really want that for Scott...?We have to like him twice as much, and that's not as easy as it should've been because he's such a whining chump.
Was this the same in the source material?I've no idea, as I've never read it, but I'm very curious as to the tone of the books, in comparison. Pilgrim does have a path through this story, and he does reach a moment of clarity of sorts, though embedded deep enough into the piece to hit home, and demand you punch air. A quick surf of the net later and I read that O' Malley was actively involved in the script, "polishing" certain scenes and contributing new lines. Some of which made a journey back into the final volume of the book. But it seems the ending of the movie, which is where things get seriously,if beautifully messywas a totally separate creation, with the creator supplying merely "suggestions".
SP is a very pretty film, I won't dab feint praise here. In fact, a contender forthe most visually arresting, exciting and vibrant movie of the last few years.Trumping more obvious, perhaps larger leaps in what is technologically possible (ie. theAvatarsof this world) by taking us as an audience inside the action, or maybe even drawing theaction around us..?Certain moments, and scenes made me giddy with their audacity yet they'rebeautifulto the point of near-arousal. How Wright moves his characters, and keeps them completely visable, is a massive evolution of what Sam Raimi could get a masked Spider-Man to perform, less than a decade ago.It IS worth watching this film for alone, if you share my inclinations and I'm not suprised that the Blu-ray release, in particular, has sold so well. However, if you wish for more substance underneath the style, you could come away dissatisfied as I also was.
The story itself is quietly, quite brilliant. Derived from a series of graphic novels by a guy called Bryan Lee O'Malley, and based around the simple, time honoured tradition of "boy meets girl". Scott is a young musician, who crosses paths with his "dream girl",Ramona Flowers(just one of the many wonderful emo-friendlynames which give it so much texture) Scott pretty much hits a wall trying to woe this girl via conventional means, learning that Ramona comes with baggage and then some...! In this case, taking the form ofseven, psychotic "evil exes", all disgruntled in some way.....and all standing between Pilgrim and his hearts desire.
The books have been big sellers in relative terms. A movie has been planned since the first, of theeventual 6 books in the series, was released, with Wright himself joining the project some years in. It's easy to see why any creative would be attracted to the project, just as on paper the story could be for everyone.Most of us will be able to relate, if not to Scott himself, than perhaps toRamona..ormaybe Knives...or....etc Offsetting this though, and rather holding the film incarnation back is a structure that falls considerably short of being natural or organic. I get that the idea was to get real people to act out an anime/console level-game hybrid, in real backdrops as opposed to purely virtual ones, but it compromises the telling of the tale.That should always be the driving force of any movie project, whether it seeks to serve a broader audience or a cult-y one. SP cost too much too make, and features too starry a cast to be almost alienating, so deliberately.
The supporting cast all look their parts! Ranging from total unknowns who make notable impressions (Ellen Wong and Kieran Culkinas Scott's own ex girl-friend, and his current roommate respectively) to more rising stars like Winstead and Jason Schwartzman(Gideon Gordon Graves)The inclusion ofsuper hero actorslike former Superman, Brandon Routh, former Torch and incoming Cap: Chris Evans PLUS past Punisher: Tom Jane, is fun!
Within the first couple of minutes there's akiller linefrom Scott's band mate Kim"...if your life had a face, I'd punch it.."As soon as I heard that, I thought this was going to be a memorable and distinctive script. It wasn't that long after where it became clearer thatthere isn't a script really to speak of. More like a series of lines that the actors have to say, simply as a middle ground to getting them repeated and emblazoned across T-shirts.
When it gets to the the slower, character based scenes, SP is again found wanting. Those quieter moments become emotionally flat and lose their worth in the grander scheme. Seemed to me no one is connecting the dots, maybe even in the performances. Was Mary Elizabeth Winsted's Romana really supposed to be quite so uninteresting...? I mean, I get that the idea was maybe weweren't supposed to understandwhat Scott sees in this thoroughly dull, fickle person..(at least I hope that was the intention!) Recreating what passes through a group of friends when one of their number seems to, almost inexplicable start a relationship with someone we never would've picked for them in a million years. Still, for that to really work i this context, on screen; for us to really want that for Scott...?We have to like him twice as much, and that's not as easy as it should've been because he's such a whining chump.
Was this the same in the source material?I've no idea, as I've never read it, but I'm very curious as to the tone of the books, in comparison. Pilgrim does have a path through this story, and he does reach a moment of clarity of sorts, though embedded deep enough into the piece to hit home, and demand you punch air. A quick surf of the net later and I read that O' Malley was actively involved in the script, "polishing" certain scenes and contributing new lines. Some of which made a journey back into the final volume of the book. But it seems the ending of the movie, which is where things get seriously,if beautifully messywas a totally separate creation, with the creator supplying merely "suggestions".
This accounts, in part, for how the screenplay just seems to plod along, I suspect. Even approaching seeming repetitive. I feel like somewhat of a bore when I bring a long standing bugbear of mine from the pack here, but will say it anyway...because SP Vs The World istoo long for the story it's telling. Nearly 2 hours..????REALLY...???? It lessens the power of what it does do so well: those visuals! Leaving me effectively car-sick by an energy I'd earlier enjoyed. It's the sign of a film, not as confident in itself as it would like to appear, that tries to beat a viewer into submission so.
And where was the soundtrack, exactly?I can't sign off without mentioning this dropped bollock. One I had admittedly taken as read, after seeing that teaser poster above. The score and songs should've been creatively awesome.Playing off the current wave of new-electro pop and celebrating the incessantly, hypnotic and subliminal quality of that present in gaming. Instead, we get nothing but jingles. The fact that a scene featuring abattle of the bands, is built up then built up before finishing within a few bars, robs SP of a goose-pimpling, final act, and left me "on standby". I did appreciate the in jokes and sound effects, samplingMing the Merciless ring from Flash Gordon (1980) though! That's what this film should've been like!!
Blimey, I've done a lot of moaning here, haven't I...?It's only because I care. About Wrights filmography, and particularly the resonance and reach of material derived from comic books and graphic novels. SP's use of the look and language of anime and console games is probably way overdue. I've long been a vocal advocate of the stories which originate as sequential art and popular culture. Achampion of their validity, potential and greater value to the creative arts, whichever the media they may journey into. Look atAMC's The Walking DeadTV show, for an superb example of what's possible in making the crossover. Here we get a film which brings more to mind the film ofTank Girl (1995). WhenScott Pilgrim VS The World comes alive, it's as magical as you would hope. It just spends too long in auto-play. Reflecting on my own reflections, within this piec: am I guilty of having too high expectations..? Someone out there is bound to be considering, beacause I know there'speople who REALLY like it. A reasonable question! My instincts, truly tell me I hadn't. After all, I was aware Wright wasn't working with Pegg and Frost this time and my mind was open. In a nutshell, this feels more like watching someone else play a console game, which is never as much fun as playing one yourself. For me, though I'd like it if we "stayed friends", GAME OVER:SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD.....it's not me, it's YOU!! - 3/5
Comics giant Marvel'sdrive to bring their most long-lived and long-loved creations, from the page to the screen for a world wide audience, steps up another gear or two this year: firstly here with the release ofTHOR. This year's Summer block-buster season has definitely kicked off.
Straight away, we're presented the supporting cast on both sides of this story before the hero.Scientist Jane Foster, as played by geek pin-upNatalie Portman, her assistant Darcy and mentor Dr Erik Selvig, are researching electrical storms in New Mexico, when they hit what they assume is a vagrant with their van. The stranger rambles and thrashes around, talking of mythology and betrayal...before passing out cold. With me so far...? Good, cos that's the straight-forward bit!
The film then pulls us into the heat of battle in965 AD, where Odin: King Of Asguard,bearing strong resemblance to Sir Anthony Hopkins, is leading the charge against the"Frost Giants",so as to hold back their domination of all Nine Realms. Seeing as one of those is Earth,it's a good thing!When the Asguardians defeat the Giants, they seize the source of their power "The Casket Of Ancient Winters".
THEN...It's years later, andOdin's son Thoris in preparation to succeed as King, when the Giants reawaken and attempt to seize it back. Against his fathers wishes,Thor recruits his brother Loki and his loyalist, childhood friendsto travel to the realm of their enemies and teach them a lesson. Things don't quite go to plan, and Odin is forced to intervene to avert full scale war. Disappointed in his son,Odin strips Thor of godly powers and exiles him to the realm of Midguard (...or Earth, as we call it). Fair's fair though, he sends his trusted magical hammer"Mjolnir",the source of his power, there too. Though casting a spell on the weapon, meaning Thor himself must prove worthiness of wielding it once again whilst in exile....
That would probably be enough plot for most movies, let alone this brand of action and adventure. With"Thor", that's all done in the first act! Soon the hammer has been located by government agency"SHIELD",as featured in earlier "Marvel Universe" films. SHIELD operatives work out that this "artefact"could be tied somehow to the anomalies Jane and her colleagues are researching, andher data is seized. They band together withThor, who must first prove his sanity and worth to gain their faith, win back his trusty hammerand ultimatelydefend the Earthfrom a mysterious menace.
Thor has been in and out of development for over a decade, with no script nor take on this specific, unique story enough to turn the light to green. Eventually the baton was clasped by respected actor anddirector Kennth Branagh.His involvement in such a big profile, big budget film must lend it a certain amount of credibility. Probably needed more than ever, in an outlandish premise, even by Super-hero standards.Branaghhas a great eye for spectacle, as demonstrated on Hamlet and Henry V, and it'sperfectly married here with the restraint and focushe's brought to smaller, character works over the last two decades. He also proves massively capable, when it comes to the action scenes. Here they have a charmharkening back to the pre-CGI era: you can work out exactly who is belting who, with what AND WHERE!!
It falls to Australian near-unknownChris Hemsworthto bring"The Mighty Thor"to life. In this case, it's more important than ever this other-worldly hero be someone we can rally behind.Hemsworth offsets that heavier backstory and captures imaginations with equal ease. Indeed once the film dispenses the"info-dump", the energy and fun really starts to engage. Thor gathers pace to become athoroughly enjoyable, famiy orientated action/fantasy film. Hemsworth proving incredibly likeable and charismatic, physically impressive, with a gift for the comedic aspects in the script.Essentially it's classic "fish out of water" stuff, which give the film heart and a feel-good factor, associated with 1980's genre fare. You genuinely feel for his plight, despite the fact that Odin was quite right to take the hard line with someone who's a cross between a WWE Super-star and Andrew "Freddie" Flintoff. LikeTony Stark, hero of the Iron Man films, it's the flaws in the nature of a passionate, conflicted hero which contribute to it's success and lend it a soul. The story is almost Shakespearean in scale and tone, but relentlessly fun.
Natalie Portmanis decent enough, in the modest character ofJane Foster. Sadly for her, cohortsDarcy and Dr Erik are much more interesting. Particularly thelatter, played by Stellan Staarsgard. Skaarsgard is wonderful as a middle aged man, reared on the Norse myths. It's a joy to see him and embrace the possibilities his fantasy maybe a reality after all.Sir Anthony Hopkins, brings the expected gravitas to Odinand other supporting characters drawn from Thor comics prove unmistakeable, and nicely cast. Sure to delight devoted fans and amusing the common movie goer. I particularly liked Idris Elba as the formidableHeimdall.
Special mention should be made of Tom Hiddleston as Loki, who I'm loathed to call the villain of the piece. There's something very tragic and classical about this character, in particular. His shifting allegiances and paths of logic are as sympathetic, at times, as those of Thor and company. A triumph of the script, and notable progression for "the super-hero" movie. No one in Thor wears the"black hat"as such and it's refreshing that the instigator of the conflict isas well drawn and beautifully played as the traditional heroes. Hiddleston himself should be one to watch, in the future. Because of this balance, and the interpersonal drama, none of the noisier, more extravagant set-pieces in Thor feel like afterthoughts, to appease attention spans. Tension and pathos build naturally.
Asguard remains a curious corner of the "Marvel Universe". With amassive supporting cast, history and whole political system and moralistic code of it's own. States of existence which may be a reflection of our own, but play against a cosmic backdrop. The science at play, as the film goes to lengths to point out, being so far advanced to appear as magic and mysticism, to such as ourselves. In shortThor, should be a tough sell, but this film isn't.Production design, in both sets and costume, have a timeless elegance yet futurism which reminds me ofJohn Boorman's classic Excalibur. "Godly", with a hint ofLa Vegas! but again underlining the similarities between the civilisations Thor traverses. Even the "Bi-frost", or "rainbow bridge" of the comics, is realised in such a way you don't question that either.My favourite element has to be the fabulous "DESTROYER", just one of many staggering SFX.Faceless with all the chunky quality of a Jack Kirby comic book panel.
It all works so well,juxtaposed with the small, bleak, unloved town in New Mexico Jane and company are holed up in, when Thor falls into their laps. The disused gas station they observe from, under tumbling skies, seeming the very edge of the Earth. So much more memorable than another sprawling city-scape, or Hell's Kitchen. The only way something such a departure from standard super-films is going to make it's mark is if done, like this, withabsolute conviction, without a hint of self-consciousness. Admirably, this film makes few concessions, and serves up lore in a way that'sas rich and immersive, almost as the Lord Of the Rings trilogy. Whilst being aware of it's audience and the note of relevance it must strike, for us to care about struggles for power, between omnipotent beings with really big metal hats on. Branaghembracestheir grandeur,yet great care is taken to make them all recognisable types and toimbed warmth and humour.For example, Thor and the "Warriors 3" are childhood friends, and everyone can relate to that.
Whilst Thorfurther primes us for next years super-hero team movie "The Avengers", it stillworks and exists as a story in it's own right. Anyone who hasn't seen earlier "Marvel movies", and maybe hasn't a clear intention to see more, is no less served. Plus there's plenty left untapped, should intended sequels, become a reality. Those of us versed in the language of the comic books get their expectedPOST-CREDITS scene(..so don't leave the theatre!!!) and will note a certainClint Barton, aka Avenger "Hawkeye",in an extended, non-credited cameo role.
"The God of Thunder"was never destined to be first off the starting blocks when Hollywood started to realise untapped potential in comics pages. Thor isn't as agreeable and mainstream friendly, as guys like Spider-Man or even Robert Downey Junior's Iron Man. Even within the comics themselves, he's has been reinvented and refined, over and over again to gain a steadier footing in each decade.
Choosing the right angle to come at it from, and the right creative team, took senstive handling and Marvel Studio's get a huge majority of the balance right. Presenting a charming, if not quite unmissable, film with something for everyone and meaning Captain America will have a fight on it's hands, to top this, later in the Summer.THOR is on general release, everywhere, whatever your realm, now...! -4.5/5
Seeing the1980'saction series, with all it's associated whizzes, bangs and winks, transferred to the BIG SCREEN, 2 decades plus on, is a strange experience for this 80's survivor. I know how ISHOULDbe judging this movie, and accrediting it's worth. Still, more so than any movie I've seen in a while, there's aduality to my reflections and observations. One which mercifully does seem meet in the middle.
On one hand,"The A-Team"(TA-T) whilst never what you could term a franchise, is an assortment of words when placed together retain an enormous potency. Most especially now than ever, and almost 30 years since the format was originally conceived for US network television by the lateSteven J Cannell. Say them to yourself now, and you get the rush of almost race memory!!
....mohawks, cigars, plans, saloon doors, bullet holes, a ****-off RED and black van and a glass of milk....?
The language and imagery of TA-T is vivid and tenacious. Then on the other we have the fact this IS 2011(2010 when released...) For a multi-million dollar movie,drawing in some major talent, against a slew of other wholly original or certain un-filmed premises and source materials,to be justified it must offer more than nostalgia. Or a lap-of-honour for that found agreeable before. Any new action adventure movie which will be offered to a broad age range, must be relevant, responsible, creatively fertile and deserving of hard-earned cash, in an era of increasing prices and widening choice. Those who endeavour to meet these objectives cannot and should not expect to coast by ongoodwill and the "beer and pizza"vote.
With this long-talked of movie, we're offerednot a recreationof the urban guerrilla operations, missing daughters and western-allegories which formed the plot of 90% of the series, but anorigin tale. We see how the team is forged into the "band of brothers" they would become, even if this film istotally 21st century in both approach and historical context. This may not have been strictly needed, but is a viable approach. Where the original incarnation were veterans of the war in Vietnam, their2010 counterparts saw active service in the Gulf conflictsof the 90's. As events conspire, though Hannibal actually knows Templeton "Face" Peck and Murdock, they don't know each other. None of them are acquainted with discharged Ranger BA Baracus until the events here. This story, conceived by Cannell with Joe Carnahan serves to take them from that point, right up until the set-up of the regular series.....
Theera of multi-channel TVhas been very good toThe A-TeamTV series, with 2 or 3 repeat runs on UK multichannel TV, in the last decade and a half. It's a series which can hardly be described as "unseen for years" to dwell only in hazy memory, when you can dive into HMV and pick up a boxset for less than a tenner. Like many bygone shows, it's perfectly suited to being stripped daily across the schedule. Older people get a cosiness from it and a new generation take to it for it's nostalgic, culty -vibe, air of convention and predictability. Shows like this, I'm thinking back to theresurgence of Adam West's BAT-MANseries in the late 80's as a famous example, take onritualistic appealfor audiences.
So how much of that to you preserve, and take forward, when seeking to ride that wave, and yes exploit that audience and affection, whilst still attracting the necessary bums into seats at the multiplex, in 2010-11...? A dilemma hardly unique todirector Joe Carnahan ( Narc and Smokin' Aces )and producerTony Scott(Top Gun, True Romance etc) Still, I doubt many end results, will have quite so many folks with mental boxes which need ticking, as TA-T does.
Carnahan's film really comesout of the trap flyingin this respect. The movie feels like TA-T. Actually, scrub that! It looks and feels like the version of ityou remember, rather than how it actually was. This is the kind of shenanigans, in scale and tone, I always imagined and hoped, the team got up to when theyWEREN'Ton the telly !In betweenhelping shopkeepers hold off protection rackets or whatever. The story is big, though not what you'd call highbrow and the levels of violence, threat and language kept to a level which is age appropriate. It maynot officially be a family film, but I can guarantee that it's that demographic who will get hold of the DVD and enjoy it most. It's still very much alive action Saturday morning cartoon.
On the minus side, I found some of it'schoppy presentation and editing, most distracting and almost confusing. Weakening the warmth of the piece, seemingly to seek a credibility with folks who are not very likely to want to see a film of TA-T anyway. It's unnecessary and works against the organised chaoswhich comes with realising a project like this, in a truthful but palpable way. A great pity when more of what they were getting almost bang-on in with the characters, would've served.
Yes, that wonderful quartet of characters have all survived the ride to 2010...
Liam Neeson, an excellent actor and true movie-star, swaggers from under shadowy rafters, to light the cigar ofColonel John "Hannibal" Smith, originally played by George Peppard. Neeson was an unexpected choice for this part, but an exciting one I felt. It's all too easy to camp this sort of stuff up, yet Neeson brings weight, balanced with the levity you need tosell someone so preposterous as Hannibal. Even refining and expanding the character and his parameters, as much is wise. But, there is a "BUT" If you put someone, however good that actor is, insomeone elses clothes, speaking someone elses lines and even dye their hair the same colouras the other guys was, you're not doing yourself any favours in avoiding prolonged comparison and enforcing the idea the new guy is an imposter. Neeson is the only one of the main cast, fighting a notion he was"playing dress-up". This is the bloke whosurvived The Phantom Menacewith his dignity in tact: He can do this stuff without the props! It was a silly call to make, certain to give ammunition to naysayers. Yet so much about the rest of the film is not only right, but very right and great entertainment without any knowledge of a previous version.
The one you'd think they would've cocked up was "BA": the muscle and engineering wizard behind so many of the teams "custom" escapes, and beloved of 80's children. "BA" Baracuswas, and still very much IS the cult figure/actor "Mr.T" "T" remains a delightful, eccentric and enigmatic personality, 30 years since his heyday (...just ask the SNICKERS people!!) Quinton"Rampage" Jacksonisn't any more of an actor than T was, but he plays the role fearlessly, and captures enough of the same energy. It's this member of the team though, that the script does themost to develop. For example, his famous fear of flying. Noble, but in some ways a shame as Jackson spends a significant amount of his screen time,being "someone else".I felt it all worked in terms of the story, perhaps a little at the expense of some of the films identity. Though it did help in distancing the character from his original incarnation they could've done that in a sequel? The final "punch-the-air" moment we get to on BA's journey doesn't quite hit home.
With this long-talked of movie, we're offerednot a recreationof the urban guerrilla operations, missing daughters and western-allegories which formed the plot of 90% of the series, but anorigin tale. We see how the team is forged into the "band of brothers" they would become, even if this film istotally 21st century in both approach and historical context. This may not have been strictly needed, but is a viable approach. Where the original incarnation were veterans of the war in Vietnam, their2010 counterparts saw active service in the Gulf conflictsof the 90's. As events conspire, though Hannibal actually knows Templeton "Face" Peck and Murdock, they don't know each other. None of them are acquainted with discharged Ranger BA Baracus until the events here. This story, conceived by Cannell with Joe Carnahan serves to take them from that point, right up until the set-up of the regular series.....
Theera of multi-channel TVhas been very good toThe A-TeamTV series, with 2 or 3 repeat runs on UK multichannel TV, in the last decade and a half. It's a series which can hardly be described as "unseen for years" to dwell only in hazy memory, when you can dive into HMV and pick up a boxset for less than a tenner. Like many bygone shows, it's perfectly suited to being stripped daily across the schedule. Older people get a cosiness from it and a new generation take to it for it's nostalgic, culty -vibe, air of convention and predictability. Shows like this, I'm thinking back to theresurgence of Adam West's BAT-MANseries in the late 80's as a famous example, take onritualistic appealfor audiences.
So how much of that to you preserve, and take forward, when seeking to ride that wave, and yes exploit that audience and affection, whilst still attracting the necessary bums into seats at the multiplex, in 2010-11...? A dilemma hardly unique todirector Joe Carnahan ( Narc and Smokin' Aces )and producerTony Scott(Top Gun, True Romance etc) Still, I doubt many end results, will have quite so many folks with mental boxes which need ticking, as TA-T does.
Carnahan's film really comesout of the trap flyingin this respect. The movie feels like TA-T. Actually, scrub that! It looks and feels like the version of ityou remember, rather than how it actually was. This is the kind of shenanigans, in scale and tone, I always imagined and hoped, the team got up to when theyWEREN'Ton the telly !In betweenhelping shopkeepers hold off protection rackets or whatever. The story is big, though not what you'd call highbrow and the levels of violence, threat and language kept to a level which is age appropriate. It maynot officially be a family film, but I can guarantee that it's that demographic who will get hold of the DVD and enjoy it most. It's still very much alive action Saturday morning cartoon.
On the minus side, I found some of it'schoppy presentation and editing, most distracting and almost confusing. Weakening the warmth of the piece, seemingly to seek a credibility with folks who are not very likely to want to see a film of TA-T anyway. It's unnecessary and works against the organised chaoswhich comes with realising a project like this, in a truthful but palpable way. A great pity when more of what they were getting almost bang-on in with the characters, would've served.
Yes, that wonderful quartet of characters have all survived the ride to 2010...
Liam Neeson, an excellent actor and true movie-star, swaggers from under shadowy rafters, to light the cigar ofColonel John "Hannibal" Smith, originally played by George Peppard. Neeson was an unexpected choice for this part, but an exciting one I felt. It's all too easy to camp this sort of stuff up, yet Neeson brings weight, balanced with the levity you need tosell someone so preposterous as Hannibal. Even refining and expanding the character and his parameters, as much is wise. But, there is a "BUT" If you put someone, however good that actor is, insomeone elses clothes, speaking someone elses lines and even dye their hair the same colouras the other guys was, you're not doing yourself any favours in avoiding prolonged comparison and enforcing the idea the new guy is an imposter. Neeson is the only one of the main cast, fighting a notion he was"playing dress-up". This is the bloke whosurvived The Phantom Menacewith his dignity in tact: He can do this stuff without the props! It was a silly call to make, certain to give ammunition to naysayers. Yet so much about the rest of the film is not only right, but very right and great entertainment without any knowledge of a previous version.
The one you'd think they would've cocked up was "BA": the muscle and engineering wizard behind so many of the teams "custom" escapes, and beloved of 80's children. "BA" Baracuswas, and still very much IS the cult figure/actor "Mr.T" "T" remains a delightful, eccentric and enigmatic personality, 30 years since his heyday (...just ask the SNICKERS people!!) Quinton"Rampage" Jacksonisn't any more of an actor than T was, but he plays the role fearlessly, and captures enough of the same energy. It's this member of the team though, that the script does themost to develop. For example, his famous fear of flying. Noble, but in some ways a shame as Jackson spends a significant amount of his screen time,being "someone else".I felt it all worked in terms of the story, perhaps a little at the expense of some of the films identity. Though it did help in distancing the character from his original incarnation they could've done that in a sequel? The final "punch-the-air" moment we get to on BA's journey doesn't quite hit home.
Bradley Cooper is superb as Face. Here is an actor who is one of few liked by men and women in equal amount. The former, for his turns in blokey stuff likeWedding Crashers and The Hangoverand with the latter for his allergy to wearing shirts. In this, married to a character with exactly the same appeal! His relationship withJessica Biel's Agent Sosais just diverting enough to add more than it detracts from the serious business of blowing stuff up and flirting with every other girl on screen.SharltoCopley, famed for his role in breakout SF film District 9, fills the cockpitas Murdockand is the most different from how originally envisaged. Copley is great to watch, even if he never quite steals any single scene.
The story is another riff on revenge and recriminations, lost love...but with more welding and flying tanks.What TA-T lacks in originality, it makes up for in audacity and attitude. That reckless spirit and air of mayhem it should have, is right up on screen. The final sting operation is very well realised, played out and worth the wait.
Insetting this premise up again, its' pretty obvious that further films in the series are/were an intended outcome (the future of the franchise is still up in the air and is dependent on it's DVD lifespan) Despite it's flaws, I believeTA-T deserves that. I'd love to see, now the origin has been told, a film which does revisit the Los Angeles underground settings of the TV series. If only in part, and once again portrays them as "soldiers of fortune". As the credits sequence, nicely re-made in this film, confided"..if you can find them, maybe you could hire..."It has legs of sorts, even if I can't see it ever having the longevity of Bond.
There'a lot of nonsense talked of projects like this. As if the thought of them is sacreligious. It's long been a theory of mine thatThe A-Team, along with other 80's "gold" likeKnight Rider, The Fall Guy, Manimal, Airwolf, Magnum etc, would bebetter servedby the bigger screen and a feature presentation/budget. The concepts being so BIG in the first place! Bigger than TV at the time could really support, hence the repetition and descent into mediocrity. This movie supports that belief. Of course some of the old guard will have problems with it: they always do. At the end of the day though, we're not talking about Hamlet or I Claudius. Neeson was never likely to receive an Oscar nod for "his generations take on Hannibal Smith". Anyone expectinga movie of a big, loud, charming if clunky action show from as glossy an era as 1980'sUS TV, to do anything MORE than what Joe Carnahan's take on TA-T does, is in the wrong queue.
Did the world need a movie of The A-Team...? Maybe, maybe not...but in my experience, by and largethey wanted oneand that's as good enough a reason to make this kind of film as any other. Anyone out there thinking I'm pushing the boundaries of my mission statement with this blog, which I offer as SF and Fantasy films..? Well, you've got a point! Hehe. However, be under no illusions,The A-Team is, as it always was, totally ridiculousand more fantastical than a few series I can think of set on other worlds completely. That's how I feel pretty strongly that this moviehas got enough right - 4/5
So we're back to the late 90's (..nostalgia for the 90's already?!) to meet Eric Bottler, as played by Sam Huntington. You can be forgiven for not recalling that he played Jimmy Olsen in Superman Returns. Eric's a guest at a Halloween party, and it's there he bumps into his estranged high school friends: Hutch, Windows and Linus. The air is less than clear between them all, as it turns out Bottler was the one who walked away, in an effort to "grow up". Initially Eric is satisfied that, as he's now a successful car salesman and the others....aren't, he made the right choice.
That would make for a bloody short film, so they do all get talking again. It's clear that there's one thing that still bonds them, and gets their bloods boiling: George Lucas's legendary, original (then only!) Star Wars movie trilogy. And of course this is late '98, just months away from the premiere of the most anticipated movie of all-time....the notorious Star Wars EPISODE I: The Phantom Menace. The boys dust down their old flight of fancy: to bust into Lucas's famed Skywalker Ranch! Specifically to catch a look at the rough cut of this movie before anyone else can. After all, they're the biggest SW fans in the world!!!! (..something we probably ALL believe about our most cherished franchises!)
Bottler is less than enthusiastic, as he's a grown up now, with responsibilities to his Dad's car dealership. It takes a chat with Hutch and Windows, and the revelation that their friend Linus has cancer, to make him think again. Linus only has 4 months, and the film is out in 6....the plan is on!!
It's somewhat of a TAKE TWO, for Ms Kristen Bell, star of last week's movie reviewed: Pulse, as she's also in the cast of FANBOYS (...a "double-bell"??!,hehe). This time though, she's is one of a gang making up the cast of "geeks". So whilst she doesn't get the whole of the spotlight, she still shines in what was a funny, heartfelt and likeable movie. First thing that I thought when getting hold of the DVD, and reading the "blurb", was that there'd clearly been some mistake..! A Star Wars and SF parody/celebration, but where's Simon Pegg on the credits...?? Nowhere!!! Still those present, both in the main cast and checking in for cameo roles, either as themselves or "characters", more than make up for this oversight...!
The fact that this troop of devotees is made up of virtual unknowns, aside from "token chick", Kristen Bell as Zoe, really adds to the flavour of the piece. It's not a big movie, budget wise, at all. Still, it's pretty slick as little, culty films go. Stealing the show is Dan Fogler as the Han Solo obsessive, "Hutch". Since FANBOYS, which was actually shot a couple of years prior to it's eventual release, Fogler is the one that has gone on to a certain amount of profile and success (Balls Of Fury). Possessing some of the energy, as well as girth, of Jack Black. Hutch is the one you'll remember the next day when you tell someone about what you watched last night. He gets most of the best lines and physical comedy.
Watch out for Seth Rogen as a total of three guest characters they encounter on their road trip. Rogen is hardly a man of a thousand voices, yet this again adds to FANBOYS charm. One role in particularly is the recurrent head of a rival group of Star TREK fans who get in the way at certain junctures. The real world divide which does actually exist to some degree, between the two fandom's, is worked to great effect by Cline and Goldberg's script. Hopefully Trekkers/Trekkies, will take the jokes in the best of faith as amends is made through a fun cameo from a Trek icon, who shall remain nameless here. Star Wars alumni, of course, are out in force and some more recognisable than others. I enjoyed seeing Ray "Maul" Park as the head of a SWAT team of security guards, in particular.
There is the occasional BIG LAUGH, usually playing off scenes or lines from that which it celebrates. My own favourite being Hutch's van going into "hyper-space". Just like the Millennium Falcon, it's a right bucket of bolts Then there's a perfectly framed recreation of the classic trash-compactor scene from Star Wars.
I feel it would be a mistake to simply suggest that this is a film solely FOR geeks, even if it does give that impression (one of the posters, with a Darth Vader helmet does FANBOYS no favours in extending it's reach) It is about a specific time in a young adults life that is pretty universal. One partially explored as the journey Mark Hamill's green as grass Luke took in the original Star Wars (1977) in fact. And that's not where the similarities in the straighter edge to FANBOYS ends. The parallels are many as they reach for their "death star" moment. Yep....your read that right, STRAIGHT..! For all it's quotes and in-jokes, and believe me there are tons of them at play as one would expect, FANBOYS makes effort to be about something. It has a serious, perhaps not subtle, side. Linus is suffering from terminal cancer, being what pushes the friends into taking action as opposed to speculating on a wild notion. Eric is under immense pressure from his father to take over the family business despite his own, separate ambitions. Cleverly reflecting Luke's conflict with Uncle Owen in Star Wars.
Bottler is less than enthusiastic, as he's a grown up now, with responsibilities to his Dad's car dealership. It takes a chat with Hutch and Windows, and the revelation that their friend Linus has cancer, to make him think again. Linus only has 4 months, and the film is out in 6....the plan is on!!
It's somewhat of a TAKE TWO, for Ms Kristen Bell, star of last week's movie reviewed: Pulse, as she's also in the cast of FANBOYS (...a "double-bell"??!,hehe). This time though, she's is one of a gang making up the cast of "geeks". So whilst she doesn't get the whole of the spotlight, she still shines in what was a funny, heartfelt and likeable movie. First thing that I thought when getting hold of the DVD, and reading the "blurb", was that there'd clearly been some mistake..! A Star Wars and SF parody/celebration, but where's Simon Pegg on the credits...?? Nowhere!!! Still those present, both in the main cast and checking in for cameo roles, either as themselves or "characters", more than make up for this oversight...!
The fact that this troop of devotees is made up of virtual unknowns, aside from "token chick", Kristen Bell as Zoe, really adds to the flavour of the piece. It's not a big movie, budget wise, at all. Still, it's pretty slick as little, culty films go. Stealing the show is Dan Fogler as the Han Solo obsessive, "Hutch". Since FANBOYS, which was actually shot a couple of years prior to it's eventual release, Fogler is the one that has gone on to a certain amount of profile and success (Balls Of Fury). Possessing some of the energy, as well as girth, of Jack Black. Hutch is the one you'll remember the next day when you tell someone about what you watched last night. He gets most of the best lines and physical comedy.
Watch out for Seth Rogen as a total of three guest characters they encounter on their road trip. Rogen is hardly a man of a thousand voices, yet this again adds to FANBOYS charm. One role in particularly is the recurrent head of a rival group of Star TREK fans who get in the way at certain junctures. The real world divide which does actually exist to some degree, between the two fandom's, is worked to great effect by Cline and Goldberg's script. Hopefully Trekkers/Trekkies, will take the jokes in the best of faith as amends is made through a fun cameo from a Trek icon, who shall remain nameless here. Star Wars alumni, of course, are out in force and some more recognisable than others. I enjoyed seeing Ray "Maul" Park as the head of a SWAT team of security guards, in particular.
There is the occasional BIG LAUGH, usually playing off scenes or lines from that which it celebrates. My own favourite being Hutch's van going into "hyper-space". Just like the Millennium Falcon, it's a right bucket of bolts Then there's a perfectly framed recreation of the classic trash-compactor scene from Star Wars.
I feel it would be a mistake to simply suggest that this is a film solely FOR geeks, even if it does give that impression (one of the posters, with a Darth Vader helmet does FANBOYS no favours in extending it's reach) It is about a specific time in a young adults life that is pretty universal. One partially explored as the journey Mark Hamill's green as grass Luke took in the original Star Wars (1977) in fact. And that's not where the similarities in the straighter edge to FANBOYS ends. The parallels are many as they reach for their "death star" moment. Yep....your read that right, STRAIGHT..! For all it's quotes and in-jokes, and believe me there are tons of them at play as one would expect, FANBOYS makes effort to be about something. It has a serious, perhaps not subtle, side. Linus is suffering from terminal cancer, being what pushes the friends into taking action as opposed to speculating on a wild notion. Eric is under immense pressure from his father to take over the family business despite his own, separate ambitions. Cleverly reflecting Luke's conflict with Uncle Owen in Star Wars.
If the film has faults, it's in it's middle act. Some of the situations they get into before they reach the hallowed ground of George Lucas's Skywalker Ranch are contrived and not that funny. Trying to catch the American Pie audience seems out of place compared to what's before and after. I suspect this is the main product of the re-shoots and re-cuts forced upon the writers and director, which held the films release back for so long. Speaking for myself, I would've happily lost all this, and had more running around inside the Ranch itself. How many more "road movies" do we really need, after all..? More playing off the Night At the Museum feel, which so enlivens the last portions of the movie, would've been better. I love that George Lucas himself enjoyed his personal screening of the rough cut of THIS movie so much, he offered the use of the genuine Star Wars sound effects, to FANBOYS.FANBOYS isn't going to change the face of movie comedy. Nor is it that original as premises go (...everything it does well, Detroit Rock City did better) Still, it's weathered it's rocky road to our DVD players, more than adequately. The core story is affecting, and should speak to anyone who has that geek gene about any subject. Standing as a impassioned celebration of expressing that side to our natures, and how it can be positive and empowering in the real world. These fanboys and girl may be at crossroads in their lives, either professionally or emotionally, but they're not losers. Their heartfelt connection to Star Wars ultimately bonds them together to make for positive experiences and choices, from childhood to adulthood, rather than holding them back. This kind of portrayal has been a long time coming - 3.5/5
As this murky and grim movie opens, we briefly meet Josh. The student goes to his university library for a meeting...only to be attacked by an apparently humanoid "spirit". We stick around long enough to witness Josh having the very life force, pulled from him. And they wonder why library's are closing..! This impressively realised, nightmarish sequence sets the tone for the rest of Pulse adequately enough. However, what follows serves to mostly repeat this...only nudging the ante up, as little as it can get away with, victim by victim.Kristen Bell is the star of this movie, who most people will recognise from recent comedy hits like Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Couples Retreat. Bell, like Sarah Michelle Gellar before her, graduates into the sub genre of Japanese horror remake from that of "cult telly". A survivor of both Heroes and Veronica Mars, she brings her usual shed-loads of "pluck" to play here in Pulse as Mattie who we discover is Josh's girlfriend ( Josh clearly batting way above his average, I must state...) When she calls on him at his digs after a missed date, he looks even rougher. As she's stood there, wondering if he needs an intervention, he slips away to hand himself with an ethernet cable.
This is bad enough, but Josh somehow still sends out online message to their little, totally unlikeable, circle of friends. Mattie eventually tracks down the old PC, now sold on to Ian Sommerhalder (..that bloke from Lost, to you and I) as Dexter. Then we get strange parcels arriving from the dead dude, and persistent disturbing videos, hopping from hard drive to hard drive. Dex joins with Mattie to try and get to the bottom of what Josh was up to, who he was meeting back in the library....and what could be causing a pattern of suicides in their locality. Could this "virus" be some manner of portal, to another dimension which doesn't view co-existence with our own as an option...?
This one is another in the line of films which originate in Japanese film. In this case cult horror movie Kairo, by Kiyoshi Kurosawa. There was steady trickle of them, that started with The Ring in the late 90's, re-made by Hollywood studios. They're still trickling through now, 5 years on! It's not that Pulse is a 100% bad film...but it was/is sign that we've probably seen all there is to see and that there's little gold left in simply re-making these stories as straight schlock. Gore Verbinski's remake of The Ring, satisfied by expanding on the original, visually and in terms of mythology. Few have followed suit.
The script is a little under-written, the whole concept behind it is interesting and relevant to modern life but is never really communicated as potently as it should be. The characters too, are only thinly sketched, but it IS a "scary date movie" in essence, and such is their way. You can't expect miracles, but it would have been nice to have someone other than an echo of the leads earlier role, to root for. Where Pulse lets itself down most is in not giving enough, sooner. Sommerhalder is bland, but believable as Dex and Bell desperately breathes life into her character. But with such scant plot development in the first three parts of an hour, it's a losing battle they're both fighting. Pulse only lasts 85 minutes, including end credits you see...!! There's no time to muck about, showing us so little. When plot development actually comes and we meet the guy Josh was actually supposed to be emailing and meeting, the whole thing starts to open up...but it's too late. It expands so much in such a short period, that any sense of scale and dramatic momentum subsides just as quickly.
The impressive, if a little over-rendered direction, stripped of power by a few cliches too many, and a pointless cameo by cult horror actor Brad Dourif. I'm sure these "spit and cough parts" are the only things the guy does now, and as soon as I see one, it takes me totally out of the story. I can be a bit hard on horror films, at first glance, I'm all too aware. Having said this though, I'm not sure whether Pulse truly belongs to that camp after all. It's actually more of a SF film, masquerading as a horror. After all, it's a movie about an "idea" rather than an emotion. In presentation it's grounding in either isn't sure enough to satisfy.
Pulse wasn't received very well at all, I understand. Yet Bell has become a familiar face in bigger films, so at least it did her no harm. I'm staggered to see two sequels were made for the direct to DVD market, Pulse: Afterlife and Pulse: Invasion. I'd like to think that they perhaps took the sound enough idea behind it, further.....but I'd be willing to wager they don't, so I'm not in a hurry to see them.
I'm determined to finish on positive, for a film which at least managed to hang on to my interest by it's finger tips. So I'll state that the tracking scene of a suicide from off one of the building at Mattie's campus is really chilling. Watch out for it, if you catch it on 5* or FILM4 one evening...?? - 1.5/5
....most people's reaction to hearing the title of this movie would rightly be "..hot....what...?" Hot Tub Time Machine seems a title so evocative of stuff like "Dude, where's My Car..?" If you can get past the daft moniker though, you'll find a smarter than average comedy and a hilarious SCI-FI fantasy, we've rarely seen the like of since the prime of Red Dwarf.
As the narrator explained to us each week on Quantum Leap, "they awake to find themselves trapped in the past....facing mirror images that are not their own...", but wait....!! Actually, in this movie the reflections ARE their own, just themselves as they were back in their late teens in 1986...That is apart from Jacob, who hasn't even been conceived yet. (..he shimmers and blinks, in a slight riff again on QL) The guys are back, at that same Kodiak Resort, but at THE most crucial weekend of their lives! A "nexus" point, as modern SCI-Fi would term it, where all their lives seemingly changed forever....and mostly for the worse.
It's "Winterfest 86", when poodle rockers Poison would play to an eager crowd at the resort....but more importantly it's when Adam broke up with his first girlfriend, and got scarred for life with a piece of cutlery in the process! Adam's sister would conceive Jacob, with the father she's never named and Lou was given the very public beating of his life by the local bully, Biff...sorry, Blaine. As for Nick, he's the front man of a hungry young band competing in an "open mic" night...but would play the worst set ever, which his confidence never recovered from.
Once our heroes acclimatise to their situation, they're torn between a natural instinct and compulsion to try and "put right what once went wrong" (there I go again...hehe) and doing the responsible thing..! After all, they're blokes and have seen enough SF to know that even the tiniest change could irreparably damage the future....and not just theirs!! " have you never heard of The Butterfly Effect..?!" Speaking of which,there's a sequence in this film involving a squirrel which means I'll never hear those three words in quite the same context, ever again..! HTTM pokes good natured fun at SF like this, all the way through.
It's "Winterfest 86", when poodle rockers Poison would play to an eager crowd at the resort....but more importantly it's when Adam broke up with his first girlfriend, and got scarred for life with a piece of cutlery in the process! Adam's sister would conceive Jacob, with the father she's never named and Lou was given the very public beating of his life by the local bully, Biff...sorry, Blaine. As for Nick, he's the front man of a hungry young band competing in an "open mic" night...but would play the worst set ever, which his confidence never recovered from.
Once our heroes acclimatise to their situation, they're torn between a natural instinct and compulsion to try and "put right what once went wrong" (there I go again...hehe) and doing the responsible thing..! After all, they're blokes and have seen enough SF to know that even the tiniest change could irreparably damage the future....and not just theirs!! " have you never heard of The Butterfly Effect..?!" Speaking of which,there's a sequence in this film involving a squirrel which means I'll never hear those three words in quite the same context, ever again..! HTTM pokes good natured fun at SF like this, all the way through.
In an unexpected piece of casting, John Cusack heads up the on screen talent of Hot Tub Time Machine. Despite the fact we've all seen the others before, he's still the only one you can put a name to. Cusack was, of course, an 80's teen pin-up after roles in trendy movies like Say Anything. The last thing I saw this wonderful actor reduced to was the risible 2012 (..a film fives time more stupid than this one) No, HTTM is hardly High Fidelity or Grosse Point Blank, but it gives Cusack the chance to be "Cusack" again. To be relevant and touch base with his audience, and maybe gain sturdier ground with the a new one. Having said this, his is the straight man of the piece, as the bulk of the physical stuff is delegated amongst the thoroughly watchable wing men.
Though he annoyed at the start, Rob Corrdry wore me down as Lou. You can see where the plot is going with the character, pretty early doors but I honestly think that air of predictability was all planned too. What the story teases us with isn't so much the "if" as the "how..and when..!?" The inevitability of that particular chicken coming home to roost, being an element you want to see pay off. Craig Robinson does great dead-pan, and we get more what's helped him graduate from TV's The Office, to great effect here. It's Robinson's Nick who gets to deliver the line, "must be some kind of…hot tub time machine." He doesn't actually wink at the audience, but may as well. This along with Adam and Nick both tackling their real demons, gives the film just enough heart. After all those years in between Winterfest and their diving into the tub in the 21st century, their friendships were becoming really quite dysfunctional. They begrudgingly relied on one another, each secretly harbouring some sense of blaming the other two for some of the direction their life had taken since. HTTM genuinely muses on the whole wish-fulfilment angle of those 30 and 40 something's who may occasionally glance back and utter an " ....if I knew then, what I know now...."
It's not difficult to work out the the appeal of HTTM, it's themes and the inclinations it sets out to satisfy. Clearly it's part love letter to the goofy comedies of the 80's: The Porky's and Bachelor Party's, Bill & Ted's and even Ghostbusters. More obviously though, HTTM riffs off Robert Zemeckis' classic Back to the Future, to delightful effect. Even casting Crispin (George McFly) Glover in a role which serves as a great running gag. Jacob, a character pushed a little into the background, is faced with being wiped from even existing just as Marty was, and Nick gets to update the song from the future scene to great effect.
HTTM maybe crude, in the vein of comedies we've come to expect since American Pie, but it's also true to those 80's roots. A more dubious box, happily ticked is that of gratuitous ( female only naturally!) nudity and shallow characterisations (..the bully, the slapper etc.) Looking to the 21st century, I consider HTTM owes much to the massive success of The Hangover. Where a bunch of similar aged friends get to run around like teenagers. Likewise Todd Phillips earlier film, Old School. Though there are the somewhat predictable jokes about the fact Michael Jackson used to be black and weren't phones big back then??, an eclectic soundtrack featuring INXS, Echo & the Bunnymen, Salt 'N'Pepa and Pubic Enemy (and many, many more...as the ads always said!) makes up for that.
You may have gotten through this entry thinking it STILL sounds silly. And you'd be absolutely right, but you seldom come across a comedy which is so consistently funny, AND more than the sum of it's parts. The only real disappointment is Chase's role in things: it's never remotely explained..! But then again, that may be missing the point too. Now whenever I think back to this film, I'm smirking from ear to ear, and even that daft title has grown on me...It works as nostalgia, absolutely. I'm well aware I'm both the age and gender this film was MADE for...!
However, there's other elements at play. You girls and younger ones will find much to enjoy. Any vulgarity, just like that nostalgia buzz, is balanced with other factors to produce one of the best feel-good comedies of recent years. If it is trash, it's the best kind of trash you could spend 90 minute with - 4/5
Here's an idea I'm wondering whether could catch on: make the trailer, a couple of years before the film itself! Test out ground for whether people would actually be interested or not...? This film, Machete started out as a mock-up trailer, interlinking two-feature length movies in 2007. Part of Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse concept which included Death Proof and Planet Terror, with this "spin-off" project released late last year. Prior to the great reception this trailer in particular, got on release of Grindhouse, a Machete film not only didn't exist, but wasn't remotely, seriously ever intended on existing. Rodriguez found himself tasked with meeting "popular" demand to deliver the full-length theatrical, to match.
Danny Trejo ( Predators and the Spy Kids movies ) stars as the former federale known as Machete. Betrayed by his own boss during a drugs operation. When his family are brutally murdered, Machete himself is left for dead. A few years on, the peace he's found whilst working as a labourer, is interrupted when he's hired to assassinate a corrupt senator (De Niro) who's responsible for driving hundreds of illegal mexican immigrants from the USA.
Quickly Machete is caught up in another plot, as a patsy. On the run from violent guns for hire AND a smokin' hot immigration officer (Jessica Alba) he calls on a mexican underground intelligence network and his Priest brother to aid his rampage of revenge!! To stand any chance of not getting sliced and diced himself in this unlikely cross-fire, involving a parade morally dubious types...all played by folks you'd never usually pay to see, Machete must draw on his expertise in filling body-bags. Declaring they've all "****ed with the wrong Mexican...."
...and that's about the measure of it. There've been films with thinner plots: absolutely! I haven't a problem with that at all. There've likewise been worst pastiches made by way less talented directors than Rodriguez, with casts full of nobody's on either talent or notoriety terms. The thing is, they've normally got something "else" at work. Something that offsets the heightened ridiculousness of it all, and halts any notion of events sliding into panto.
That something is a generally a good script, full of memorable dialogue and bizarre asides. The kind Tarantino, even now, can make seem so naturalistic, and effortless. Previously of course, Rodriguez and QT collaborated on stuff like From Duck 'Til Dawn to great effect. Producing combined assaults to the senses, whom justly reside on the shelves of most movie fans. Machete doesn't come close to joining them, appearing not much more than a direct to DVD sequel/side-quel to Planet Terror. Even now, I'm struggling to recall a solitary exchange in the whole 90 odd minutes. There are a couple of quotable lines, but we'd already heard them in said "trailer"...
This is a Robert Rodriguez film though and the set-pieces are, in isolation, superb and almost as masterful as the very best he's made before, (..watch out for the way Machete escapes from his pursuers through a third floor hospital window! ) but because the spark of Machete never really ignites...? well, it just feels a bit flaccid.
As a lead Trejo is watchable enough, but he somehow always remains the supporting player in what is technically supposed to be his film. It's the character of Machete himself which is most flat and un-engaging as opposed to enigmatic and intriguing. Supporters will say this was intentional, and part of the homage, but I don't think that washes for one moment. It'd be all too easy to blame an actor who's hardly the standard leading man type, let alone a "name". It's not his fault. In fact, despite the film featuring an audacious list of "talent" (using that word anywhere near the likes of Steven Seagal is shaky ground...) no one impresses. Robert de Niro has fun in his role (...witness the Taxi Driver gag), but it's Miami Vice legend Don Johnson who I wanted to see more of. He's pretty promising as the bigoted vigilante. Given more to do at the expense of others in the crowded cast, this could have been a career resurgent turn. Jessica Alba isn't served well by this material at all.
The only character, for me, who exhibits anything like a growth and likeability is Luz, played by Michelle Rodriguez. Though certain lot points there feel over-cooked, Luz has a pathway through Machete. It's telling that, with all the fire, blades and blood flashing around, its Michelle who provided the only real jaw-dropping "wow" moment, when she climbs from the back of a van in a leather basque showing off her remarkably hot body. Maybe that says much about the rest of the film....or just my mind!
I can't help but wonder was Rodriguez's heart quite in this..? Like it was a case of taking care of some business. Over complicating the plot, as if we're going to be fooled into thinking Machete is actually about "something" quantifiable, for a single minute. Labouring his characters and normally fluid command of action, to hit the requisite marks. I must quietly affirm that if you've seen the trailer with Planet Terror (...and why wouldn't you..?! It's marvellous!!! ) then you've seen all there is to see already.
That was always the danger with a project thus conceived (Rodriguez already has form for woolly development ) and Machete is to that previous film what Shark Boy and Larva Girl were to Spy-Kids. Somehow I expected these origins to perhaps be part of the appeal. Even for Rodriguez to invest Machete with a "knowing" quantity accordingly, within it's own world, but he chooses not to. Going with a morality statement about immigration instead....so this feels like the straightest film he's made.
The Western shoot-out style finale is pretty good, but there are no surprises and not enough in the way of spectacle, or humour for my thumb to turn-up resolutely. DeNiro, Lohan and Seagal are enjoying themselves though! Yes, Machete is one of those movies you can guarantee was a lot more fun to make than watch. I can't pretend I didn't laugh too, BUT......!!!
I wish there was more to say. Let's see some real innovation from Rodriguez and Troublemaker Films again......? It doesn't help that in the last twelve months we've had revenge style romps like Red, The Losers, The Expendables and an adaptation of The A-Team, fill cinemas, and appeal to the much of the same crowd already. Machete comes late to the party, by which point everyone's feeing bloated and getting their coats. Quite where he intends on going with the not one, but two planned sequels to this, heaven only knows. There feels so little left in the tank halfway into this one! But on the other hand, maybe freed of the boundaries he'd unknowlingly set himself with that spoof trailer, back in 2007, Machete really could kill again...?? I've also read that another one of the "Grindhouse trailers" is also being made into a full length film, as we speak.
As an evening in front of the screen with a DVD goes, well...I think I liked it, in some respect. I've no doubt plenty of folks will enjoy it, and let fly that endorsement that it's just a "beer and pizza movie" , but to my mind that doesn't excuse the lacklustre of Machete. Ask me again, whether I've even seen it, in 6 weeks and I bet I'll have to give it a minutes thought.....and that's never a good sign.
3/5
As an evening in front of the screen with a DVD goes, well...I think I liked it, in some respect. I've no doubt plenty of folks will enjoy it, and let fly that endorsement that it's just a "beer and pizza movie" , but to my mind that doesn't excuse the lacklustre of Machete. Ask me again, whether I've even seen it, in 6 weeks and I bet I'll have to give it a minutes thought.....and that's never a good sign.
3/5
The town descends into panic in the wake of an outbreak of grisly murders. Then Abby's father disappears, leaving her to look after herself. Owen tries to help his new friend, becoming more fascinated and drawn into her world, the more bizarre her behaviour gets. What is it that this scared girl could possibly have to hide...? Does she really need him as much as he's starting to need her...?
Legendary British studio "Hammer Films" have re-entered the motion picture arena, after many decades and much talk, to offer this first film from a new slate. Let Me In is, as pretty much anyone with even a passing interest in films is aware, a remake. Of a very successful, almost art house swedish horror/thriller from just a couple of years ago. Which itself was an adaptation of an acclaimed book by John Ajvide Lindqvist .
Perhaps a safe bet for Hammer...? Maybe..? Maybe not..? I'm not sure, as this kind of project usually attracts derision just for having the cheek to exist. "Utterly pointless" is one way this film had been described, before a single frame had been shot. I thought that was unfair BEFORE I saw the film. Now I've seen it, I think it's almost criminal to dismiss Matt Reeves film thus. Undoubtedly disturbing, particularly in it's final act, but thought-provoking and tender.
Let Me In, as it stands with no knowledge of those origins, is a formidable film. Speaking just as much of the nature and horror in human behaviour as anything in the monstrous corners of it's world, and that's something everyone can relate to and be engaged by. It's a balance which makes for uneasy, and yes sometimes "lumpy" viewing. It's not as scary as it could've been, but is that such a bad thing..? Horror is a vein so easily, and readily cheapened regardless of budget and any integrity in a project's origins. Let Me In avoids those pit falls, makes it's point and tells it's story in an intelligent fashion.
Reeves was also the man behind the lens of monster movie "Cloverfield", which I enjoyed enormously. It was stylish, effective and promising and I saw no reason to suspect that Reeves wouldn't bring that ethic to this project. I also saw no reason to suppose he'd turn this more personal tale into something so deliberately sensational. In actuality, this represents a step up and a completely different aesthetic from that previous film. One the pulpy story required to reach a larger audience whilst somehow retaining an european air, and "Brothers Grimm" sensibility.
You couldn't get more different that the stead-icam antics of Cloverfield, than this considered work. Let Me In is visually gorgeous, and distinctive. It retains a flavour of it's earlier incarnation with the way certain shots are framed, I'm sure. As is commonplace with thrillers, going further into the plot here would compromise your enjoyment. I'll offer some words of caution however, as despite everything that I liked about Let Me In, the first 45 minutes is too slow and overdoes the foreboding menace slightly. Just as I was starting to wonder if I'd be given anything to really make me sit up, once I'd acclimatised to the period setting, the mood and a disturbed central character it's initially hard to get a handle on, Reeves moved it up about 3 notches. It was just in time for this viewer. I consider the only thing which dilutes the power of this provocative film, is that slight air of pretence.
I touched on the notion of "speak as you find", as regards movies, last week in my review of Prince Of Persia. The similar issue with Let Me In, and others like it, is one more linked to who we are and what makes us tick as well as they way we consume our story in particular. Be canny enough to ignore the platitudes, and memories of remakes past, and you'll be appreciative of what Matt Reeves and Hammer have sought to do.
Is the label of "completely unnecessary remake" fair...? Solely to appease those to "lazy" to read subtitles..? Whether some feel that, is neither here nor there. It may not be essential, but does it have enough of an audience, ready and waiting? That's the crucial question! One sizeable enough to justify it's cost and employing, ideally obviously, the artistic licence of another creative. It's themes are universal; it's relevance to the modern age in both the narrative and characters, clear and sad. That's regardless of it's art house roots, or whatever language is your first.
I will put my hand up and say, as film is a visual medium, I'd rather not try and READ a film, and be enveloped into a world the director is creating, then steering us through, at the same time. Surely both will be compromised to some degree, particularly is you're a very visual person, as I am. I want, nay need, to enjoy the production design and the framing of the piece as much, if not more so, to appreciate the directors intention. If I'd wanted a pure authors telling, of course I'd READ the book! It's nothing remotely connected with laziness. I'm not saying this is an all or nothing rule of thumb, but in the case of such as this, when there's a distinctive, well-budgeted remake forthcoming that has an intriguing pedigree and talent, of course I'm going to wait for the English language version!
There is a certain snobbery, very vocally present whenever this issue raises it's head. When the remounts "suck" it's claimed as justification the film should never have been remade in the first place. Toys are regularly tossed from prams! Of course it's more likely that it just shouldn't have been made by those particular creative's who've muddied or soiled the vision and compromised the core story and values.
I notice that message boards and review sites are still peppered with digs at the movie. Yet when you look at how it's rated, by the public and critics alike, it's scoring high marks. Proof of what I've come to know is true over the last decade or so, that it's always the naysayers who shout the loudest, regardless of what proportion of the audience they represent. Of course it's fine to prefer the original, but let's be fair and acknowledge Let Me In is a fine film in it's own right.
Me, well now that I've seen this film, enjoyed it and were stimulated by it's questions and statements, I'll almost certainly seek out the Swedish version. Even if I catch in on FILM 4 or some such place. With less to labour my eyes over, for fear of "getting it" I'll be able to see the tone of that one also, and compare the two, should I wish. Hell, I may even get the DVD and look for a dubbed option...!
I'm reluctant to recommend it as a "horror". There isn't much of the gore for those so minded to feast over. Let Me In probably resides more in the thriller camp, despite the "vampire" associations. I wouldn't hesitate it referring anyone over 18 to this because it works so well, on a few levels. Let Me In will haunt you, perhaps in a way you wouldn't expect, for days after. Hammer themselves have chosen wisely, as a starting point for establishing themselves in the 21st century. The other films they have either in or about to be released represent a confidence and willingness to cover all bases, which could lead to a catalogue which could re-ignite and celebrate genuine horror over gore, and maybe surpass that of it's 60's and 70's heyday. Time will tell, just as it will for Owen and Abby.
4.5/5
Just like with people, more often than not, I find that with movies it's best to "speak as you find"....
What some may find less than agreeable, is often expressed very vocally but based on pre-concieved ideas, misunderstandings, chinese whispers. Subversion even, by other parties. Either with a vested interest, or just plain devilment and mean spirits. Yeah, be informed by all means, but try to never close your mind completely I say, to an alternative. You could be missing something which has more to give than may be apparent at first glance, or based on a few grumpy dismissals. One such movie is Disney's Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time.
What some may find less than agreeable, is often expressed very vocally but based on pre-concieved ideas, misunderstandings, chinese whispers. Subversion even, by other parties. Either with a vested interest, or just plain devilment and mean spirits. Yeah, be informed by all means, but try to never close your mind completely I say, to an alternative. You could be missing something which has more to give than may be apparent at first glance, or based on a few grumpy dismissals. One such movie is Disney's Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time.
No, it's not the best thing since sliced bread, and neither does it have that must-see quality that Pirates Of the Caribbean had, which was the franchise Disney were/are looking to repeat the success of, long term. They even state the fact in the "blurb" on the DVD sleeve, so I'll be returning to the comparison a couple of times within this column. What's present and correct though, is that dusky, faraway and other-worldly energy and sweeping adventure which enriched the stories of Arabian Nights and classic fantasy epics like Jason and the Argonauts, Sinbad or Clash Of the Titans. We're talking pure high adventure, blended with fantasy and folklore. Made fresh by a old hand director employing 21st century production values, and tapping into a proven established mythology of two decades standing in the arena of video games. Disney may feel all we need to know is that Pirates intention, but I feel it would be remiss of me not to at least give you some lay to this land...
Dastan was an orphaned boy living rough and not doing well very at stying out of trouble whilst fending for himself, at the time of the Persian Empire. When King Sharaman witnesses an admirable show of courage from the boy, he adopts him as his own. To be brought up as much a Prince Of Persia as the Kings other, natural sons: Tus and Garsiv. When grown, the Prince's serve and expand this empire, under the guidance of their uncle, Nizam. That is what brings them to attack the walls of sacred city Alamut, in an attempt to ally with this society through marriage of the elder prince Tus, to Alamut's Princess Tamina.
The King himself, however, did not endorse the attack on the city and it's this conflict which leads to the his murder, which Dastan would appear to have committed. Of course, our hero is totally innocent and escapes "justice" to get to the truth, and avenge the man who believed in him when no one else had. So there's fathers, sons, brothers and princesses...all in the mix of a film which attempts to breathe as much new life into the sand, swords and camels genre as Gore Verbinski Pirates trilogy had that brand of long dead high seas, skulduggery. I'll happily say, job done!Getting swept up in the dunes, and/or donning turbans for our pleasure are principally Jake Gyllenhaal as young, well young-est "Prince" of the title: Dastan. Gyllenhaal's star is really rising as he takes on roles which appear tactically to propel him into the true A-list in the coming decade. He's shortly to be seen in the keenly awaited (by me, anyway) Source Code, so is making sure all bases are covered. Followed quickly by a rom-com, I'm going to predict. He proves a formidable, beefed up figure, but Dastan's also very much the innocent. Trusting to a fault, and humble. There's much under the surface of the character, which I feel Gyllenhaall only goes part way to reaching, probably through little fault of his own.
Then there's designated "English Rose" Gemma Arterton as the Princess Tamina. Customary "mardy arsed pima donna", but with hidden warmth, Leia-type. Of Arterton's recent turns as female lead, the others being Quantum of Solace and Clash Of the Titans, I feel she works best here somehow. Tamina being very much a foil, displaying great heroism, but remaining feminine in the classic tradition of derring-do. How much is down to Arterton's presence, and what's on the page.....well, I'm not entirely sure, but I liked it! In fact it's her, more so than anyone else, which keeps the story thundering along.
Alfred Molina is the closest we get to a Jack Sparrow figure here as Sheik Amar, whom the heroes encounter on their adventure. Molina makes each scene he appears in, lightening the mood, bringing something less wholesome into the mix and showing the real worth of a seasoned character actor within the smallest of principle cast. Even in what are essentially "Summer blockbuster" type movies. I'd go so far as to say the film would've been slightly better off if Sheik Amar had been more a part of the action, but then again Molina still isn't a bankable name. I loved the stuff at the Ostrich races. If there's a sequel, more of him please...
They're ably supported by Ronald Pickup, a great British actor in a small but key role as King (carrying on with the Pirates analogy, Pickup brings the Jonathan Pryce factor!) Disney continues to recruit cast members of much-missed UK comedy Coupling by following Jack Davenport with the wonderful Richard Coyle, and then there's Ben Kingsley's juicy turn as the machiavellian uncle to the three Princes of Persia. It's a very, very conventional character with echoes of Scar from Disney's animated classic The Lion King. Kingsley proves as watchable, functional and startling as ever. Nizam is the kind of guy we love to hate!
SFX wise, Prince Of Persia is very easy on the eye. The Persian empire and the city of Alamut particularly given close attention by the production designers and each action set-piece tops the last. As it should be! One aspect I did enjoy was how Newell and his team managed to export the experience and imagery of gaming, as a novice like me understands it anyway, into a narrative. I should say that this is hardly a constant, but how Dastan is tracked when he performs various feats is deliberately game like, I'm thinking.
Newell seeming to embrace this association rather than pretend the material needs to disassociate 100%. Because we stay close into Gyllenhaal's features for so much of it, it impressed me more, meeting my natural sense of disbelief more than three quarters of the way. I don't know for certain which of the sequences are actually culled from the legacy of POP games, but I think I can have a bloody good guess.....and strangely for a non-gamer, that's more than fine with me. Not least of all because plot comes first.
POP:TSOT is more substantial than many CGI fests, and traditional in tone and intent, if cutting edge and breathless in it's presentation. Perhaps to a fault, as maintaining the pace is sometimes kept up at the expense of clarity to the exposition. Never to the extent that we had so mercilessly in The Mummy Returns though. It's a pity the plot isn't given more room to breath, when it possesses twists and turns, morality, and a novel depiction of a fantasy staple or two. It just concerns me that children in particular, may miss key aspects to the backstory, on first viewing. I'm not sure how relevant this is, but folks do like to pigeon hole these movies so I will overtly state POP:TSOT is a colossal improvement on other "games to movie" properties like Tomb Raider, Doom, Silent Hill and even the inexplicably perennial Resident Evil series. You require no awareness of the source material whatsoever, to "get it", either.
For adults, the intrigue may hold few surprises, but will make up for it with that mythology and a nice take on the ever seductive concept of time-travel. Having said that though, the last act contains many "gasp" moments, where Disney make good on that guarantee of pounding pulses on the DVD sleeve. Children will be a gog, for the whole run time. For those of you who have seen it (anyone else, minor spoiler warning!!!) I feel that the nature of the sand and the evocative back story behind Alamut was a trick, slightly missed. It's classic hokum obviously, but the dagger and imagery pointed to something spiritual and I'd like to know more about where a human beings soul and will actually interface with the sand. Has the sand a sentience of it's own, varying in reach on any plane of existence dependent on how much of the stuff is around....? Or was it in fact, totally servant to human will....?
Mike Newell, the third most commercially successful British director of all time due to Four Weddings and a Funeral but more importantly the 4th Harry potter adaptation: The Goblet Of
Fire (2005) has undoubtedly looked to the style of Verbinski on "that other" franchise as part of the job description, I'd say. But he's too idiosyncratic an old hand to not bring more to the table. POP deserves a revisit, and an expansion of it's societies and themes, ideally with Newell in the chair again.As rumours of a further film in this series start to grow, perhaps Gyllenhaal got the franchise cornerstone of such an assault on the A-list, nailed down..? However, I'd be looking for rather more to the character of Dastan than was present here. Movies, and certainly franchises like this are only as good as their heroes. That's why we continue to invest, on repeated trips to the cinema or whatever else. Witness Shia LaBeouf's Sam in the Transformers movies. Gyllenhaal is more than capable of giving us a hero of Han Solo proportion swagger, with Dastan. He has an innocence and likeability akin to Luke Sylwalker crossed with Lion-O from the Thundercats. An agreeable, potentially dynamite in fact, balance.
Yep, so I really liked this film. Maybe if I were a "gamer" I'd feel differently, I dunno' ..? As it stands, it's about as much relevance to me as the fact that I'd never been on the Pirates ride at Disneyland when Curse Of the Black Pearl first came out. If you've not seen it and are looking for a DVD for Easter Sunday afternoon with the family, you could do much, much worse than choose this.
4/5
There was something approaching a buzz about this film, based on Edinburgh's infamous West Port Murders of the 1820's, for short time. Down to a few decidedly geek-friendly facts and points. Not least of all because it stars geek royalty in Simon Pegg (Shaun Of the Dead, Star Trek, Hot Fuzz etc) and Andy "Gollum" Serkis, but chiefly because director John Landis just doesn't make many movies anymore. Landis doesn't make much of anything, come to that, but he will forever be a figure of interest thanks to The Blues Brothers and Michael Jackson's Thriller video from 1983. Thriller itself was a lead on from seminal horror and comedy hybrid An American Werewolf in London. A genre-changing film, which brought a refreshed angle to werewolf mythology with it's dreamlike visage, progressing from both UK and USA horror heritage, and wonderful script. Comedy hits such as Trading Places and Coming to America followed, but fans have been hankering for a Landis "funny horror" for a very, very long time. So is Burke and Hare "IT"..?Despite the odd awkward chortle here and there, I'm sad to answer in the negative. Firstly, B&H was clearly intended to be the blackest of black comedy but this short study of supply, demand and moral abandon doesn't really strike that note in any satisfying way. Posters teased that, by association, this film would regenerate the Ealing tradition of comedy films, such as The Ladykillers. Where in reality, it feels more like a "Carry On" film, only without the subtlety.....!
By the time we get stuck into the plot, B&H is already trying to be something else. Seeking to gain a sympathy of sorts for Pegg's Burke character by factoring in a totally fictitious romance between Burke and struggling, slightly mad actress Ginny. Not a 100% unwelcome diversion, as Ginny is played by the best thing to ever come out of a Summer Bay school uniform, Isla Fisher. Though all it does is muddy the waters further, of a film which even the most ardent of Landis fan's would describe as "under par". Fisher struggles with the Scots accent, but is her usual, winsome self. Others in the cast, such as Tom Wilkinson as Knox, who pays the titular duo for their "bodies" and "Pegg-buddy" Jessica Hynes as Hare's wife, send it all up mercilessly.
Special mention should go to veteran TV personality and actor Ronnie Corbett, as the head of the Edinburgh militia. Corbett does a great deal, with quite a small role. However, all of the above is not supported well by Landis's old fashioned placing of other recognisable faces, in fleeting parts. Blink and you'll miss Michael Winner (yes, I'm afraid so), Stephen Merchant, Paul Whitehouse.....and "rewind"..!! Isn't that Jenny Agutter..??
There is still evidence of a flare present in Landis's work here. Whilst some of the visual gags may not be in the best taste, it looks good. Pegg and Serkis may not have what you'd call chemistry, but they do wonders with the material given, and the special effects are absolutely brilliant. Revoltingly so, in places...! The production design, and location work is outstanding. Edinburgh of the 1820's is brought to life, warts and all and the difference between the domains of Burke and Hare and the academic they supply, beautifully realised. That maybe enough to appease you...! It went some way, with me I confess.
If you get hold of this film, for any other reason than to be entertained for and hour and half, you will be disappointed. The "black" comedy element, isn't..! For more successful examples, dig out your box set of the League Of Gentlemen instead, because Burke and Hare is nothing much more than a "romp". That caption right at the start proclaiming that ".."This is a true story... except for the parts that are not" .." brings to mind of those alternative titles that used to be offered at the top end of many a Carry On film. Scenes amidst the townsfolk of Edinburgh, perhaps striving for a Monty Python like, self awareness (...which reminds me, Bill Bailey is great as the executioner....!) A hoped for supernatural element never materialises either. Perhaps that's baggage from awareness of Landis's earlier work and unfair. But at least it would've been another, much needed layer.
I understand many liberties have been taken with "fact" to make the arc of the characters more satisfying. In context, as a rather bawdy historical comedy perhaps that was wise, but how much of that "bawd" is intentional, when so much of B&H is pulling in another direction...? The source story has, I understand, developed a life of it's own in the telling over the last 200 years. Burke & Hare belongs very much to the people of Scotland and if they're okay with it (...and I don't know whether that's the case or not..) then who am I to judge...?
I understand many liberties have been taken with "fact" to make the arc of the characters more satisfying. In context, as a rather bawdy historical comedy perhaps that was wise, but how much of that "bawd" is intentional, when so much of B&H is pulling in another direction...? The source story has, I understand, developed a life of it's own in the telling over the last 200 years. Burke & Hare belongs very much to the people of Scotland and if they're okay with it (...and I don't know whether that's the case or not..) then who am I to judge...?As a movie, it's not as bad as some reviews have made it out to be either. If you're unaware of Landis's filmography, you won't see it as incompetent, just "stiff" (...okay, sorry for that one!) Neither does it out stay it's welcome, at under 90 minutes. Half an hour later I was Googling: Firstly "John Landis" to remind myself of other, juicier work, but also "Burke & Hare" themselves. Perhaps that counts for something...
2.5/5
2.5/5
So we've got a cast of four of my, actually probably everyone's, favourite actors.. Plus a better than average director and a story ripped from the pages of one of the leading brands in genre entertainment DC/Vertigo Comics, with a considerable budget....! Surely RED is as near as I could have gotten to a sure thing, given my all too obvious by now, sensibilities...?
Action icon, Bruce of the Willis is introduced as former CIA operative Frank Moses: a sort of cross between Victor Meldrew and Jason Bourne. Frank's retired, growing restless...and resorting to tearing up his pension cheques just for a chance to chat-up Sarah from the pension company, on the phone. One evening, when he's barely licked the last of the Horlicks from his lips, a black-clad task force breaks into his house to take him out..! And no, I don't mean to Bingo.
Action icon, Bruce of the Willis is introduced as former CIA operative Frank Moses: a sort of cross between Victor Meldrew and Jason Bourne. Frank's retired, growing restless...and resorting to tearing up his pension cheques just for a chance to chat-up Sarah from the pension company, on the phone. One evening, when he's barely licked the last of the Horlicks from his lips, a black-clad task force breaks into his house to take him out..! And no, I don't mean to Bingo.
Little did they anticipate, Frank's instincts have far from deserted him. He gives them the customary "good-hiding", and goes on the run. Believing anyone who's had contact with him to be in danger, he stops to pick up...okay kidnap, Sarah, as played by Mary Louise-Parker, on the way. It's on this mission Frank relies on the help and knowledge of former colleagues. They're all likewise trying and mostly failing, to adapt to their new places in society.
I know...!! SOUNDS bloody good, doesn't it..? I should stress before I make this point that I've not read the 3-issue mini-series of RED, on which this was based. However, I am a big comics fan. A veteran you may say, and likewise of comic book adaptations. Hey, in this day and age, perhaps we're all that!!? But I will state, with that in mind, I'm aware that in adapting anything from one medium to another, one rule should ideally apply if that project is to be of any real worth. Certainly in it's own right, and possibly, as may be ther case with RED, at all. Namely that to convince you've got some sort of colours nailed to the mast, as a creative force, somewhere in the equation.
This has been achieved more often than not in recent times on both the big and now the small. In that latter instance looking particularly towards AMC's series The Walking Dead. That production, whilst only 6 episodes old, has taken a beautifully simple piece of storytelling and nostalgia, and ladled in to the broth extra richness and layers. It realises that when you remove, through necessity, certain elements of the experience of a tale unfolding in that media, you absolutely must counter-balance it with "something else". A few recognisable faces as this attraction in this instance, quickly loses it's kick, but because the characters and their motivations in RED are so thinly sketched, we've not much else to hang on to. To pull us from scene to scene, and hold attention. As the reader, we're in control. Of the pace, the casting, the score even....but as a viewer, when you place faith and get less back in return..? Well, it sticks in peoples throats and that counts whether you've read the original or not. I'd love to know what a fan of the source material makes of it. So once I've had my say, I'll check out some other reviews.
In comparison, as a film alone, with RED we've got something which does almost the minimum. Don't get me wrong, it does it very stylishly at times. Explosively even! RED is a quirky, stunning treat for the eyeballs, but only in places. Scene after scene offers some neat angle, and visual slight of hand. Mixing genre's with a confidence I'd normally respond to, from the road movie through the revenge flick and the romance/caper, whilst predominantly supposing to be a acton/thriller. But in trying to do all this, the plot is neglected til late in the game, elimating most of what little tension, let alone drama, was present. I'm not entirely sure that most of the core cast had the faintest idea what was going on either, which doesn't help.
Say what you like about The Expendables, a film which also features the novelty value of a few wrinklies kicking-ass, but it wore it's heart on it's sleeve, and said "take me or leave me!" I respect this. It set it's sights lower, and achieved it's goal. We get no such attitude nor satisfaction, from RED. And I'm disappointed to share this, as I'm a long time champion of the worth of GN's and their adaptations. As it stands, it's funny, but not funny enough. Exciting, but nowhere near enough, and the characters are interesting, but.......I'm sure you get where I'm going there.
The biggest problem I have with it is the treatment of the "outsider" to the group, Sarah. The first 15 minutes of the film introducing her and Frank is very entertaining. Showing promise, with the warmth and humour as their first "date" effectively ending in him gaffer tapping her mouth closed and kidnapping her. I'd even go so far as to say it reminded me of a Cohen brothers film (...I'm thinking Burn After Reading, for one ) She's pissed off and confused as you would be, yet 10 minutes later....? All's practically forgotten, accepted, and with very little in the way of character development and exchange between the two, in between. This wouldn't be so bad if they'd not spent so much screen time establishing Sarah as our way in! Yeah, we get she's bored with her life, but it still doesn't wash. A further 15 minutes on, and she's sidelined completely.
Mary Louise-Parker plays Sarah well, and it's a huge shame when she's shunted over to make way for Helen Mirren (who is brilliant, by the way) as, well....as Helen Mirren. Karl Urban is also fine as the new younger, yet experienced, agent tracking them all. Making it very clear why he's been chosen to bring lead the cast of the new Judge Dredd movie. Julian McMahon is also quite good, in a role you could say is very against type.
I know...!! SOUNDS bloody good, doesn't it..? I should stress before I make this point that I've not read the 3-issue mini-series of RED, on which this was based. However, I am a big comics fan. A veteran you may say, and likewise of comic book adaptations. Hey, in this day and age, perhaps we're all that!!? But I will state, with that in mind, I'm aware that in adapting anything from one medium to another, one rule should ideally apply if that project is to be of any real worth. Certainly in it's own right, and possibly, as may be ther case with RED, at all. Namely that to convince you've got some sort of colours nailed to the mast, as a creative force, somewhere in the equation.
This has been achieved more often than not in recent times on both the big and now the small. In that latter instance looking particularly towards AMC's series The Walking Dead. That production, whilst only 6 episodes old, has taken a beautifully simple piece of storytelling and nostalgia, and ladled in to the broth extra richness and layers. It realises that when you remove, through necessity, certain elements of the experience of a tale unfolding in that media, you absolutely must counter-balance it with "something else". A few recognisable faces as this attraction in this instance, quickly loses it's kick, but because the characters and their motivations in RED are so thinly sketched, we've not much else to hang on to. To pull us from scene to scene, and hold attention. As the reader, we're in control. Of the pace, the casting, the score even....but as a viewer, when you place faith and get less back in return..? Well, it sticks in peoples throats and that counts whether you've read the original or not. I'd love to know what a fan of the source material makes of it. So once I've had my say, I'll check out some other reviews.
In comparison, as a film alone, with RED we've got something which does almost the minimum. Don't get me wrong, it does it very stylishly at times. Explosively even! RED is a quirky, stunning treat for the eyeballs, but only in places. Scene after scene offers some neat angle, and visual slight of hand. Mixing genre's with a confidence I'd normally respond to, from the road movie through the revenge flick and the romance/caper, whilst predominantly supposing to be a acton/thriller. But in trying to do all this, the plot is neglected til late in the game, elimating most of what little tension, let alone drama, was present. I'm not entirely sure that most of the core cast had the faintest idea what was going on either, which doesn't help.
Say what you like about The Expendables, a film which also features the novelty value of a few wrinklies kicking-ass, but it wore it's heart on it's sleeve, and said "take me or leave me!" I respect this. It set it's sights lower, and achieved it's goal. We get no such attitude nor satisfaction, from RED. And I'm disappointed to share this, as I'm a long time champion of the worth of GN's and their adaptations. As it stands, it's funny, but not funny enough. Exciting, but nowhere near enough, and the characters are interesting, but.......I'm sure you get where I'm going there.
The biggest problem I have with it is the treatment of the "outsider" to the group, Sarah. The first 15 minutes of the film introducing her and Frank is very entertaining. Showing promise, with the warmth and humour as their first "date" effectively ending in him gaffer tapping her mouth closed and kidnapping her. I'd even go so far as to say it reminded me of a Cohen brothers film (...I'm thinking Burn After Reading, for one ) She's pissed off and confused as you would be, yet 10 minutes later....? All's practically forgotten, accepted, and with very little in the way of character development and exchange between the two, in between. This wouldn't be so bad if they'd not spent so much screen time establishing Sarah as our way in! Yeah, we get she's bored with her life, but it still doesn't wash. A further 15 minutes on, and she's sidelined completely.
Mary Louise-Parker plays Sarah well, and it's a huge shame when she's shunted over to make way for Helen Mirren (who is brilliant, by the way) as, well....as Helen Mirren. Karl Urban is also fine as the new younger, yet experienced, agent tracking them all. Making it very clear why he's been chosen to bring lead the cast of the new Judge Dredd movie. Julian McMahon is also quite good, in a role you could say is very against type.
Malkovich, Freeman, Cox and Willis are all good enough (John Malkovich) getting what there is resembling the good lines here, but no one ever shines. Sadly RED will prove just another few characters of ink on all of their filmographies, just as it's status as a 2nd choice rental/cheap purchase only, for movie fans. It's not that it's a bad film at all, it's that all too obvious after taste that it should've been so much better.
3/5
Not so much a blast from the past this time, as a full on "air raid"! I've dug deep for something timely, in light of the exciting announcement that Henry Cavill (see left) has been cast in one of cinema, and indeed the whole of popular culture's, most iconic, influential and potentially dynamite role (..or roles, depending how you look at it!) That of Clark Kent, aka Superman...Zack Synder unveiled Cavill as the lead in Warner Brothers upcoming, first true reboot of the Superman franchise in almost 35 years. Snyder shall direct, following more than sterling work bringing 300 and Watchmen from page to screen, for release in around 18 months time. The whole project was originated and will be "godfathered" by the mighty Christopher Nolan, who's impressive filmography includes the re-booted, re-energised Batman films of 2005 and 2008.
Nolan and Snyder's take on the 80 year old comic-book legend, has an unenviable task ahead, on the surface. After all, everyone thinks they know Superman already...! Of course that's mostly true. At least one, maybe two, variations of. But the truth of the matter is this is the latest in along line of reinventions, sensitive and indicative of their era. Superman retains inbuilt appeal, audience goodwill and awareness, only true of a select pantheon of popular culture figures (...Holmes, Bond, Tarzan etc.) It's resurrection, once again, was inevitable.
For the last son of Krypton, that began really with the actor George Reeves. A man perhaps just as famous to 21st century audiences, for being a controversial, troubled figure in Hollywood history, after the story of his rise and fall was dramatised as Hollywood Land, a few years ago. For super-hero adaptations, there's no doubt the 60's belonged to Adam West's notorious, unmistakeable take on Batman. However Reeves made a considerably bigger impact, for longer, throughout the 1950's as Superman.....
Beginning here with 1951's Superman and the Mole Men. At first pass, an archetypal B-movie! Seldom, if ever, seen on network television and undoubtedly a product of it's time. Whether you see that as a good, or bad thing, depends on your own inclinations. I'd offer that with properties of this kind, part of the appeal must now be to revel in the era. Certainly as much as checking which of the bullet pointed fact about them, we know and expect. I'm no Jeremy Clarkson (...I'm pleased to confirm) but even I "wowed" over the gorgeous convertible Buick, in the early scenes.
It's odd to be thrust into the Superman fictional world quite so routinely at first. When you compare the modern necessity to tell an origin, and paint a broader picture I mean. We arrive in this usually sleepy town only just before our heroes do, and Clark and Lois appear with Metropolis and The Daily Planet only name checked. There's no mention at all of a Perry White or a need for Jimmy Olsen. In fact, up to a point this film could almost be an episode of an early incarnation of The X-Files, more so than Superman. Kent and Lane poke their noses into the nooks and crannies, as the uncanny moves into and around our world, as represented by this small town of normal, good, though quick to freak-out, folk.
There's spectacle, certainly in intention (...wires, dummies and padding barely disguised when remastered and displayed on modern plasma screens), there's wordplay between the two lead if not quite as charged as we're used to. Lastly there's Superman very caught between two worlds, and his two identities. A common theme of the more sophisticated, modern mythology associated with him. One as a human, and the other still an outsider, as these Mole Men are.
Where it contrasts and yes, conflicts with certainly my idea of Superman on page or screen is it's realisation of Clark as an alter ego. It's not the rather baby faced, square jawed, George Reeves, so much as the characterisation. Clark's far less the buffoon, or over grown boy scout than he's been played in every version since, and certainly the mainstay of the comic book all these decades. Reeves himself looks formidable in his everyday suit and tie. Speaking with an authority and presence, and a bravado usually present in Lois when challenging the views and actions of the locals. Declaring he can sort it all out...in "one single bound". Absolutely a man of his time with very little of the warmth and almost self-depreciating humour I associate with the character.
This, for me, slid drastically once we see him in the tights and cape. I'd even go so far as to say it's Superman here, that's the vulnerable one. He becomes the protector or advocate for his fellow "aliens" as the plot develops in whilst far from subtle, certainly not expected way. The plot swerves from low-budget spectacle, through post-war paranoia, to a lesson in tolerance (...though ultimately back again!!) I can't help but be reminded of the classic SF film "The Day the Earth Stood Still", also released that year.
Phyllis Coates makes a fine Lois Lane, and there's a couple of great moments between the two hinting at their day-to-day dynamic which isn't totally unrecognisable. Lois offers caution as Clark riles the growing mob mentality of Silsby, but she's quickly moved to the backseat, I'm sad to report. To single out this film, when most others of any budget would've been exactly the same, isn't really fair......but you'll want to see more of her! That's 100% thanks to Coates herself. All the supporting cast are also very, very good in mostly thankless roles.
Okay, it was shot in 12 days and it shows! And so the Mole Men are just dwarfs, in bald caps and leotards who spend an afternoon scaring young mothers and smearing the town and surrounding countryside in phosphorescent paint. It's still rather fun, particularly when in an effort to recover a wounded brother, they go back for reinforcements and produce the expected "ray-gun", which looks like the something dreamt up by Dyson. Reeves maintains his totally straight face, when stepping into the line of fire to protect the humans he's been less than enamoured with up to now. Nothing screams "filler", quite as loudly as an overlong chase sequence does it...? The one here slows the pace and pathos right down. Reducing the film to a baser level and it never recovers from this, despite that promising start.
It's odd to be thrust into the Superman fictional world quite so routinely at first. When you compare the modern necessity to tell an origin, and paint a broader picture I mean. We arrive in this usually sleepy town only just before our heroes do, and Clark and Lois appear with Metropolis and The Daily Planet only name checked. There's no mention at all of a Perry White or a need for Jimmy Olsen. In fact, up to a point this film could almost be an episode of an early incarnation of The X-Files, more so than Superman. Kent and Lane poke their noses into the nooks and crannies, as the uncanny moves into and around our world, as represented by this small town of normal, good, though quick to freak-out, folk.
There's spectacle, certainly in intention (...wires, dummies and padding barely disguised when remastered and displayed on modern plasma screens), there's wordplay between the two lead if not quite as charged as we're used to. Lastly there's Superman very caught between two worlds, and his two identities. A common theme of the more sophisticated, modern mythology associated with him. One as a human, and the other still an outsider, as these Mole Men are.
Where it contrasts and yes, conflicts with certainly my idea of Superman on page or screen is it's realisation of Clark as an alter ego. It's not the rather baby faced, square jawed, George Reeves, so much as the characterisation. Clark's far less the buffoon, or over grown boy scout than he's been played in every version since, and certainly the mainstay of the comic book all these decades. Reeves himself looks formidable in his everyday suit and tie. Speaking with an authority and presence, and a bravado usually present in Lois when challenging the views and actions of the locals. Declaring he can sort it all out...in "one single bound". Absolutely a man of his time with very little of the warmth and almost self-depreciating humour I associate with the character.
This, for me, slid drastically once we see him in the tights and cape. I'd even go so far as to say it's Superman here, that's the vulnerable one. He becomes the protector or advocate for his fellow "aliens" as the plot develops in whilst far from subtle, certainly not expected way. The plot swerves from low-budget spectacle, through post-war paranoia, to a lesson in tolerance (...though ultimately back again!!) I can't help but be reminded of the classic SF film "The Day the Earth Stood Still", also released that year.
Phyllis Coates makes a fine Lois Lane, and there's a couple of great moments between the two hinting at their day-to-day dynamic which isn't totally unrecognisable. Lois offers caution as Clark riles the growing mob mentality of Silsby, but she's quickly moved to the backseat, I'm sad to report. To single out this film, when most others of any budget would've been exactly the same, isn't really fair......but you'll want to see more of her! That's 100% thanks to Coates herself. All the supporting cast are also very, very good in mostly thankless roles.
Okay, it was shot in 12 days and it shows! And so the Mole Men are just dwarfs, in bald caps and leotards who spend an afternoon scaring young mothers and smearing the town and surrounding countryside in phosphorescent paint. It's still rather fun, particularly when in an effort to recover a wounded brother, they go back for reinforcements and produce the expected "ray-gun", which looks like the something dreamt up by Dyson. Reeves maintains his totally straight face, when stepping into the line of fire to protect the humans he's been less than enamoured with up to now. Nothing screams "filler", quite as loudly as an overlong chase sequence does it...? The one here slows the pace and pathos right down. Reducing the film to a baser level and it never recovers from this, despite that promising start.
Dated...? of course! A silly question. The pace is very relaxed, by even the crudest of modern standards. effects, quaint and the characters, clearly recognisable "types". The viewers patience and good will isn't quite exhausted, at just under an hour, but it's perhaps close. Where the film scores is in it's eerie quality, and a charm, aside from the obvious kitsch value. Despite what I said earlier, the classic duo are definitely a presence and well played, in context. What I didn't expect was the coherent, relevant and classic message of sorts. Even if it's one anchored in the post-war, age of nuclear threat, it's perhaps still of a value today. It would be misleading to call it "meat on the bones", but it's there should you need it when attention starts to flag.
The production lived on as "The Unknown People". Re-titled and re-edited into the 2 part pilot episode of The Adventures Of Superman TV series, which would again star George Reeves and Phyllis Coates, the following year. I'm reliably informed that that chase scene was wisely removed for this. As it stands, this version of Reeves caped debut is, in my eyes a generous...
2/5As part of my count-up, until production commences, then of course, count-down to release of the as yet unnamed new Superman film, this is just the beginning. Check back in with me, as I cross the decades, and meet a variety of the men of steel, on big and small screen. Some perhaps more distinguished and either better, or more widely remembered than others. Though all valid and much loved by the generations they've thrilled and amused. George Reeves may not have been the first live-action Superman (..I'll get to HIM in time!), but I'd suggest that ultimately it was he who made a star of Superman, as much if not more so, than the other way around.
SUPERMAN AND THE MOLE MEN is available, in this theatrical form, only as part of the most recent DVD box set of SUPERMAN movies. "The Christopher Reeve SUPERMAN Collection", which is still widely available. One of many goodies on the jam packed fourth disc, labelled The SUPERMAN Archive. The set itself represents tremendous value for money, as we'll see in further columns. For any SM fan, it's an essential purchase.
Moon, released in 2009, was the first full length feature from British director Duncan Jones and stars noted character actor, Sam Rockwell. Rockwell is terrific in what finally must prove a star-making role as a lone astronaut who starts to question his own grip on reality in this intelligent, exciting film. Moon is a comparatively low budget, character piece which represents perfectly everything that good science fiction storytelling should accomplish. Challenging, uncompromising, yet so wholly accessible to anyone interested in seeing a good story,told well. Even if their leanings are not generally towards the out of this world....
Otherwise, Moon really does feature the smallest of casts. Featuring Dominique McElligott, Robin Chalk and Bendict Wong, in what any other movie would appear the most minor, but here rather crucial roles. More notably they're joined on the credits by Kevin Spacey, who's so brilliant simply as the voice of the artificial intelligence GERTY. GERTY maintains the installation on the moon, and feels as real a persona as Bell, with his own calls to make and distinctions between duty of care and just plain duty. The intonations in Spacey's, unmistakable voice, are perfectly balanced. Complimented so beautifully by the production design of what is a technically faceless co-star.
Rockwell himself, who I've enjoyed so much in many films this last few years (The Green Mile, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Frost/Nixon and Matchstick Men to name just a few..) turns in an awesome performance from a script that would stretch even the most seasoned of leading men. I have to state this without going into too much detail, for those who've not yet caught this film. It's a measured but unrelenting performance, which builds with the tension and pace of the movie. Getting increasingly cerebral and physical, it's exhausting just watching Bell play out his destiny. Perhaps part of why this works so well is Rockwell's status as the most recognisable unknown face in movies....? Somehow I can't imagine this having been quite so effective with a Clooney, Pitt or Damon, in Bell's jumpsuit.
That's not to say that the script isn't more than capable mind. Not one moment or line is wasted and the dialogue so very real that only the most cynical of viewers would fail to relate to Bell, and his foibles. Here we have a hero very reminiscent of the "blue collar" types populating some of the most evocative SF films and literature, of all time. Be they the crew of the Nostromo in Ridley Scott's original Alien , or most obviously those in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Silent Running. An everyman, rather than a swaggering Han Solo type, and that's something which aids in separating this production from block-buster or for that matter "culty" fare.
Moon itself, like it's leading character, represents a return, stylistically, to the SF films of the late 1960's and 70's also. In fact, this film could only be MORE 70's if it featured Noddy Holder, riding a Chopper whilst eating a packet of Spangles...! The huge set's are sparse, and angular, framing the drama. Functional, made barely comfortable. Hardly registering in tone and texture above the greyscale. Which makes the little touches like Sam's big comfy chair look all the more stark and insubstantial. Sure enough, a little investigation of the added material on the DVD confirms Jones debt to this corner to the genre. So much so Jones employed Bill Pearson, model maker on Alien, to realise much of the model work.
Yes, that's "model work"...!! remember that..!?!?! This brings me to another strength of Moon, namely a non reliance on CGI and great screen time given to totally convincing models. There aren't even virtual sets here, the base having been built as a colossal, 360 degree physical space. Despite the fact CGI is so expertly employed nowadays, this still adds something I can't quite define. It suits the tone of the story, and serves not to overly tax the sense of disbelief of anyone watching, when it gathers pace and things get... well, really very bizarre indeed!
The film looks incredible. Jones background in the flashy world of commercial film making standing well, where it needs to. Despite what I've sated above,in this and many other respects, Moon is actually very 21st century. Somehow industrial, whilst elegant. Not only does GERTY feel like a cast member in it's own right, with it's own arc to I'd offer, but oddly so do the base itself, and even the moon surface. Again, if this had been set of planet Zog, in even a neighbouring galaxy, I doubt it could form the spooky, dreamlike connection with the viewer that it does. After all, we all see the moon, albeit from a great distance regular. We get used to it! But we still can't really imagine the journey to this neighbouring sphere, much less a day to day life such as Sam Bell's.
That's what elevates Moon above much contemporary film, of any genre. A perfect balance of studying of identity and humanity, absurdity and reality. Intriguing, bewitching and massive ideas, relevant in the most intimate of ways. Yes, they're paths what've been trodden before to some degree, but mostly in decades gone by. Moon comes at them fresh, from a modern place, bringing with it a modern sophistication. Having said that, this isn't a film for the "geeks" or that sets out to shut anyone out. The narrative is, in one respect or another, unpredictable (not a word I use lightly..) until the final moments. It's intention to enchant and challenge, rather than bewilder and indulge. Some may assert that the film shows its hand, perhaps too soon. I don't agree: as such Moon isn't a B-movie, reliant on sensation.
The science leaves you wondering, based on even rudimentary awareness, how close we may be to those concepts which drive Moon's story being a scientific fact and commercially viable, as well as their implications to day to day life. Demonstrating that distinction I'm often finding myself banging on about, between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy. As such I believe Moon will appeal to many people who may dismiss it based on the fact they're not much for Star Wars etc. and deprive themselves of a great human interest drama. A subject at the heart of all the best in Science Fiction. So it's up to us, to spread this particular word!
Moon was hugely successful, as you're probably aware. So much so that Jones is planning a follow-up of sorts. Which looks to feature Rockwell again, albeit in a cameo role, before spinning off into another corner of the same world. Potentially the 2nd of 3 films in a "Moon" sequence and called "Mute", the story of which is said to be inspired by perennial favourite "Blade Runner". Before this though, there's "Source Code", to be released this coming April, starring Jake Gyllenhall.I've little doubt the best is yet to come from Duncan Jones, who won last years BAFTA for Outstanding Debut by a British Director for Moon, or indeed Sam Rockwell. Those scenarios aside, it would be disingenuous of me to award such a remarkable, thrilling but inclusive and timely film any less than full marks. On this level playing field, Moon gets my.....
5/5
After spending much of the last decade guiding the spinning webs of Marvel and Fox's Spider-Man franchise, director Sam Raimi's returned to the Horror genre with this seemingly modest, 90 minute schlock-er. Written in partnership with brother Ivan, and on the back-burner for years.
In uncharacteristically, everyday fashion we're introduced to Christine Brown, played by "Bambi-like" Alison Lohman. Christine is by her very nature, nice to a fault and has a life to match. Doting on her furry animals and floppy-haired boyfriend Justin Long. When given chance to better herself, prove her worth to an disapproving potential Mother-In Law and assert her own identity at the bank where she works as a loan officer...? Well, she makes a deliberate, but hard, decision to "toughen up".
In uncharacteristically, everyday fashion we're introduced to Christine Brown, played by "Bambi-like" Alison Lohman. Christine is by her very nature, nice to a fault and has a life to match. Doting on her furry animals and floppy-haired boyfriend Justin Long. When given chance to better herself, prove her worth to an disapproving potential Mother-In Law and assert her own identity at the bank where she works as a loan officer...? Well, she makes a deliberate, but hard, decision to "toughen up".
Not a bad plan in itself, except it just happens to be the day that an elderly Mrs Ganush picks to drop by an plead for an extension on her mortgage, as she faces repossession. New, hard-nosed Christine, reluctantly turns her down....and that's where things start to get more than a bit "Evil Dead". Ganush puts the ancient curse of the Lamia on our Christine. One which, following 3 days of nasty tricks and humiliation, will plunge her into the fires of hell itself....!Her entire life is turned upside down, and her own boundaries, inside out. Christine's only confidants are a skeptical boyfriend, and not so skleptical seer Rham Jas. In an effort to end her ordeal, it's Jas who sets her on course to reverse Ganush's curse. However, time is against them and Christine may not have the heart for some of the choices ahead. Naturally, mayhem ensues: a glorious menu of gag-trigger moments, black comedy and real heart-racing scares...!
As such, Drag Me to Hell is so relentlessly fun, I can't stress the point enough. The kind of film where you have to stop yourself from calling out to the people on screen, to warn them something dodgy is about to kick-off, or that they've perhaps been a bit silly. All intentional, I've no doubt. You can almost hear the laughs of delight and perhaps liberation, from Raimi as he puts his central character through a series of gross and just plain scary set-pieces. Starting from such recognisable places as multi-storey car parks and her own back garden.
There's a lean, endearing cast of supporting players. Particularly fortune teller Rham Jas, as played by Dileep Rao. I loved the fact it didn't waste too much time with confronting scepticism of black arts too, and kept the characters just the right side of larger than life so it never drifts into camp. Alison Lohman dominates the movie, appearing in practically every scene. In doing this, we feel intimately involved with her, in a way that those closest to her on screen can't be. From a relatively unknown actor without anything memorable about her at first glance, Lohman proves considerable teeth. Showing a varied range, being watchable and believable even when things get outrageous. I'd even venture it's tragic, as this apparently fragile flower of a girl faces sights she'd never have seen from behind the deputy managers desk she craves. We're with her every step of the way, as she battles harder and harder to save herself. Both physically and when faced with more hard calls as time gets short.
Even though there's plenty of snorting and crunching, there's quite a low showing on the gore front, and as such DMTH doesn't limit its appeal to the "less discerning" amongst us. It's very much in line with Raimi's much-loved Evil Dead trilogy, in making a mission of out making the audience laugh, as much as wince. In fact there's even evidence within the film, for the faithful ( a polite way of saying geeks!) that this film takes place in that same fictional universe. (Listen hard, during the seance scene, for "Ash"!)
There's a lean, endearing cast of supporting players. Particularly fortune teller Rham Jas, as played by Dileep Rao. I loved the fact it didn't waste too much time with confronting scepticism of black arts too, and kept the characters just the right side of larger than life so it never drifts into camp. Alison Lohman dominates the movie, appearing in practically every scene. In doing this, we feel intimately involved with her, in a way that those closest to her on screen can't be. From a relatively unknown actor without anything memorable about her at first glance, Lohman proves considerable teeth. Showing a varied range, being watchable and believable even when things get outrageous. I'd even venture it's tragic, as this apparently fragile flower of a girl faces sights she'd never have seen from behind the deputy managers desk she craves. We're with her every step of the way, as she battles harder and harder to save herself. Both physically and when faced with more hard calls as time gets short.
Even though there's plenty of snorting and crunching, there's quite a low showing on the gore front, and as such DMTH doesn't limit its appeal to the "less discerning" amongst us. It's very much in line with Raimi's much-loved Evil Dead trilogy, in making a mission of out making the audience laugh, as much as wince. In fact there's even evidence within the film, for the faithful ( a polite way of saying geeks!) that this film takes place in that same fictional universe. (Listen hard, during the seance scene, for "Ash"!)
I continually lament the evidence that there's so little new talent emerging that makes anything approaching worthwhile horror-thrillers in the 21st century, it's movies like this which keep the faith that one day soon that will change. Raimi may have, for the most part, gone mainstream as he hit middle age, but has lost none of his sensibilities, nor awareness of his audience. The film is perfectly pitched and timed, (some have argued, cynically so...) rocking in at 90-odd minutes but feeling much shorter a ride compared to recent crops of remakes and exploitation. I read that DMTH won a few awards at genre events, such as the Scream and Saturn Awards and I can't say I'm surprised. Choosing to tell it's tale, straight and free of pretensions means that Raimi have brought us a bold fable, in a field of franchises. Having said that, should the Raimi brothers feel inclined to deliver a further instalment, I'd be in line. Drag Me to Hell may be neither big nor clever, but it knows exactly what it wants to do, and does it with style.
4.5/5
4.5/5
Back to the movie present this week, though very much the fictional past. "Black Death", kind of says it all at face value, you'd be forgiven for assuming. However, what I found here in Christopher Smith's latest film, is something very much greater than the sum of it's parts, let alone that title. A few months ago I chanced upon Smith's last film, 2009's Triangle, and was really very impressed with the ambience, performances, and how the story spun a new line on a corner of the genre seemingly, over explored. Like all great movies, it stayed with me for days. Black Death has followed suit.
With this latest project, Smith has quite clearly looked to the rich, distinctive and hardly sensitive back catalogue of the Amicus and Hammer Studios productions of the 60's and early 70's. Creating a historical, action-horror so very British yet similarly 21st century. Black Death makes quite an impression. It's a dark, fun but layered piece, falling into the same bracket as classics such as 1968's Vincent Price movie Witchfinder General and The Wicker Man. Also bringing to mind recent Tarantino film Inglorious Bastereds. Originally a project offered to another Brit, Geoffrey Sax ( White Noise, Stormbreaker, Doctor Who) the movie was actually filmed, as with a lot of projects set in medieval England, in rural Germany. It's those locations and hue of the film which serve to recreate that aforementioned era in film, even if the sensibility is a modern one. A more realistic tone, even though the journey of these characters is fraught with the grotesque and the other-worldly.
With this latest project, Smith has quite clearly looked to the rich, distinctive and hardly sensitive back catalogue of the Amicus and Hammer Studios productions of the 60's and early 70's. Creating a historical, action-horror so very British yet similarly 21st century. Black Death makes quite an impression. It's a dark, fun but layered piece, falling into the same bracket as classics such as 1968's Vincent Price movie Witchfinder General and The Wicker Man. Also bringing to mind recent Tarantino film Inglorious Bastereds. Originally a project offered to another Brit, Geoffrey Sax ( White Noise, Stormbreaker, Doctor Who) the movie was actually filmed, as with a lot of projects set in medieval England, in rural Germany. It's those locations and hue of the film which serve to recreate that aforementioned era in film, even if the sensibility is a modern one. A more realistic tone, even though the journey of these characters is fraught with the grotesque and the other-worldly.
Sean Bean leads the cast, as Uric the knight whose reputation for zero-tolerance and devotion to Christianity, goes before him. Partnered with virtual newcomer Eddie Redmayne as young, idealistic and troubled, monk Osmund they're tasked with investigating those rumours of necromancy. Both actors impress, in parts that seem so removed from one another at the outset. Osmund sees the mission as respite almost, and a means to another, more selfish end. Whereas Ulric, by this point, has little left in this life other than his own duty and legend.
The cast is rounded out with a variety of familiar faces from British TV and film, even if you can't put names to that many of them. Alongside a few I'm sure I've never set eyes on before but will look out for now. Present are noted thesp Tim McInnnery, veteran of Smith's earlier Severance (2006) and forever Percy and Kevin in the various Black Adder comedy series, and genre royalty David Warner. Warner was famously the guy decapitated by a sheet of glass in The Omen, his CV also lists Time Bandits, Twin Peaks, Babylon 5, 3 roles in the Star Trek franchise and many other distinguished shows and films. Carice Van Houten impressed me in this: a name to watch for in the future..
The film keeps us guessing as to the true nature of the threat they will confront at the quests end. Is it supernatural, or all smoke and mirrors...? After all, it's quite clear that a fear of what you don't understand and must explain how best you can, is enough to build myth and folklore in itself. It was a time of superstition and blind faith and Black Death shows how peoples of any persuasion may have their own morals or beliefs challenged and where the limits may lie. Also, the different reasons each of them, on the side of dark or light, choose their corner as a way of gratifying either those baser needs, or their spiritual goals. How fine is that line between one side and the other, in truth...? Is having any faith at all, what defines us and informs our choices...?
But let's not get too carried away on the deep and meaningful. BD is hardly a laugh a minute, but there is a black sense of humour arising from the characterisations, at play. It adds to the realism and makes for a rounded "watch". Obviously, there's a fair bit of violence on show here. However, Smith employs considerable restraint in depicting it. BD isn't gratuitous and I certainly wouldn't describe it as "gore". Shots most likely closing in on the faces of those committing violent acts, rather than the acts themselves. As such there's not huge amounts of CGI in evidence, I feel. This adds to the old school chill as much as the slightly blurry treatment of the film stock. Still, this movie has a power to startle. Just like with Triangle (screening on SyFy over the Christmas period, I notice, if you've missed it!) to go into greater detail about the story would compromise your enjoyment of of it. Black Death isn't rocket-science and it's much more an analogue piece of story-telling than Triangle was. However, it's power is in that simplicity and clarity
4/5
Welcome to this opening entry in what I'm offering as an occasional, essential selection of science fiction and fantasy films.....
Of course I'm all too aware that what each of us may view as our essential choices and our favourites, may differ. So I'm just going to clarify that within this bracket I'll not just be looking at what I view as the very cream of the genre, and my "faves" but the films which form the cornerstones of a broader appreciation and understanding of it, in context, over the last 5 decades.
Some films are essential, for example, solely because they're so very notorious and talked about. Benchmarks in the careers of influential figures and trends, or maybe because they're just plain bad and perfect examples of how NOT to do it. In which case, I'll try and stray away from lazy slating and shine a little light on the answers to questions that often come to mind, following viewing. All with my sense of humour and perspective, well in check. At the end of the day, however revered or derided any of this stuff is, it's an entertainment.
Some films are essential, for example, solely because they're so very notorious and talked about. Benchmarks in the careers of influential figures and trends, or maybe because they're just plain bad and perfect examples of how NOT to do it. In which case, I'll try and stray away from lazy slating and shine a little light on the answers to questions that often come to mind, following viewing. All with my sense of humour and perspective, well in check. At the end of the day, however revered or derided any of this stuff is, it's an entertainment.
Perhaps I'll revisit films I've not connected with before...? Maybe dismissed and even despised, in an attempt to challenge my own perceptions and illustrate how our tastes and understandings may change. Bravely jumping in with those which have slipped through my net, some of which may surprise you, and along the way. People often say to me that "I like what I like.." (...folds arms ) and whilst I sympathise and respect that, I reckon that closing doors and assuming you've seen all there is to see or that you're not capable of having missed the appeal or not seen a bigger/alternative picture can be hasty. We're only human, and have our off days and blind spots don't we...?
Last but not least I'll take a glance at the movies in context to the broader landscape, both inside the genre AND within the popular culture arena generally. Making sure to post some of those gorgeous original theatrical posters, such as the one a little further down, in all their glory. Enjoy and please make suggestions for further choices, via the forum page above or over on the TNM Collectables Facebook page...
With that mission statement still ringing in your ears, it may seem clearer why I've chosen to start here and shine a light on 1976's Logan's Run rather than a Star Wars, Close Encounters or The Thing. There's no finer example of what I describe as ESSENTIAL than Logan's Run in actuality.
It's a movie which, if you happen to let it slip out that you've never caught for example, people look at you like you're the one who's just escaped from an isolated state. It's also a film whose reach extends beyond it's run time. Boasting one of THE most memorable, evocative and referenced of premises as it's starting point, which is just as powerful in principle, as ever and often referenced in popular culture and conversation.
The 1970's was a big decade for motion pictures generally, and for this genre it would prove massive. Where hype and the definition of entry into the consciousness ascended to something beyond mere ticket receipts. Following key films like 1968's Planet Of the Apes and Jaws (1975), the "brand" was defined and taken to a new level.....but that was the year after Logan's Run, in 1977 with the original, game-changing Star Wars. What Logan's Run represents to me is the last of it's breed. A final hurrah for an older, more serious (certainly in intention) way of bringing SF stories to the big screen through reflecting a distorted vision of our own way of life, back at us, free of extravagence. What's referred to as the "shattered earth" brand of science fiction which also includes the Apes series and The Omega Man.
The 1970's was a big decade for motion pictures generally, and for this genre it would prove massive. Where hype and the definition of entry into the consciousness ascended to something beyond mere ticket receipts. Following key films like 1968's Planet Of the Apes and Jaws (1975), the "brand" was defined and taken to a new level.....but that was the year after Logan's Run, in 1977 with the original, game-changing Star Wars. What Logan's Run represents to me is the last of it's breed. A final hurrah for an older, more serious (certainly in intention) way of bringing SF stories to the big screen through reflecting a distorted vision of our own way of life, back at us, free of extravagence. What's referred to as the "shattered earth" brand of science fiction which also includes the Apes series and The Omega Man.
The very first thing that hits you about pressing that PLAY button on LR, now in 2010, even if you watch a lot of SF, is that it is so, so serious....perhaps beyond wisdom. It also boasts some distinctive production design from the opening shots, and a bizarre and unsettling scoring which sadly gets much more traditional as the film moves on. In fact, that's true of the film generally too, looking back.
Things start with an almost nightmarish and unsettling feel. The shininess of the spaces and happy clappy sensibility of the populace freak you out, even today. What if The Village, of The Prisoner, had been a 1970's shopping centre instead..? It's not subtle, but then again, LR isn't about subtlety at all, as we'd see confirmed later on. For those versed in the language of dystopian SF, we've got a good showing for the cliches here: zero tolerance police forces, legitimate sex industries, hologram entertainments, big subway like roads linking domed cities, whilst casual wear seems to consist of toga like curtains. One of the most enjoyable, pre-emptive glimpses of the future concerns this societies everyday attitude to plastic surgery. It's all bordering on the hedonistic, deliberately echoing the Roman Empire. One of many allegories, which is re-established in the final act.
Three of the four lead characters are portrayed by British actors.
Michael York, who's star was ascending at this point, on stage as well as screen, is perfectly cast as Logan 5, the establishment figure who questions the status quo and gradually comes to "blink" and "run". When we first meet him and his plain shifty colleague Francis 7, played by Richard Jordan, they enjoy their rather grim duties way to much for comfort. York possessed, in equal spades, heroic good looks and an other worldly intensity which he channels into what could've easily become the films undoing. Logan is incredibly unlikeable, most of the way through, as "heroes" go and it's refreshing.
Helping us all the more welcome the presence of Jenny Agutter as Jessica 6. A vision of loveliness most guys watching will fall for and as such we place faith in her judgement as she sees something dawning within Logan. If she thinks Logan's worth saving, and his truth worth finding, so do we. Agutter is captivating in this understated role. Stunning to look at, in skimpiest of costumes.
Francis 7 would naturally be the one who'd pursue them breaking away from the only civilisation any of them have known, across the alien Earth outside. Once again bringing Planet of the Apes to mind as we find those iconic landmarks of our world, fallen into neglect and ruin. Jordan's performance is enjoyable, in a pretty conventional role. Certainly convincing enough when the shades of grey separating his and Logan's perspectives, begin to show.
The late Sir Peter Ustinov takes the other major role, but doesn't show up until some way in so I'm reluctant to go into any detail for those who've not seen it. It's the presence of this noted character actor which refocuses things somewhat when it starts to seem there's nothing new left to see. An exchange between his character and Jessica which provided my favourite moment in the whole thing.
At it's best, the film itself is exactly what we gravitate towards SF and fantasy for! Huge concepts and vivid realisation. There's no way you can mistake this film for any other, whatever conventions it would fall back on. At almost 2 hours, there's an episodic feel to Logan's Run, and clear divide between it's three acts. Contributing to somewhat of a dilution of it's original power and into something more tried, tested and square-jawed. That may be a saving factor in a film which quickly swings from taking itself so desperately seriously to embracing adventure and dare I say, a silly side to it all. The viewer has plenty familiar to latch on to, and mercifully the film falls just short of running out of steam before a more focussed and surprisingly quiet finale.
That about-face is partially a bi-product of the big silver robots, enormous super-computers which start to break down when the get even remotely confused, underground cities and matte painted skies. Most of which would be instantly consigned to the history books by Industrial Light and Magic over the next few years. There's a final punch up between the errant Sandmen where the symbolism of Logan throwing dusty old books and clasping the star and stripes flag in self-defence, will hammer the message well home. Followed by Logan's decision to share his enlightenment, which whilst hardly original and maybe corny by today's standards, are told with Biblical connotations and a restrained tone. As such the integrity of the story survives, and there's no doubt whatsoever, I've been entertained. They pulled it off, even if it does end rather abruptly.
LOGAN'S LEGACY
Michael Anderson's movie met with mixed reviews, in 1976. Though the visuals got more widespread acknowledgement as LR received the Oscar for Special Achievement in Visual Effects. Anderson would go on to bring The Martian Chronicles to television.
Logan's Run did, however, get a thumbs up from William F Nolan and George Clayton Johnson: writers of the 1967's original novel on which it was based. As with most cases, certain aspects of the material were tailored to the needs of the script, budget of the time, and to suit Michael York's age. The most obvious change being that the age of death in the book was just 21, not 30.
Following the success of the film, Nolan would revisit the characters for two further books: Logan's World follows Logan's return to Earth, and the ashes of the system he'd escaped. Logan's Search deals with Logan going to an alternate reality, and it features an alien race.
The most famous extension of the life of Logan's Run came on the smaller screen just a short while later. CBS Televison screened a short-lived remake, very similar in both budget and dynamic to the TV series of Planet Of the Apes (...yep, again!)
Effectively an entity in itself, look for coverage of Logan's Run: The Series, back here soon.
Marvel Comics produced a 6 part adaptation of the movie and attempted to continue the story beyond. That venture was cancelled, due to flagging interest at just issue 8, but once again was pre-emptive of their Star Wars series which would come the following year and run for almost ten years, telling original stories.
In the 80's a smaller publisher produced a new version of Logan's Run this and Nolan's Logan's World novel, to some success. In the last few years, as talk of a remake started to resurface, Bluewater Comics have published a series called LR:Last Day incorporating and developing much of the movie's imagery.
The legacy of LR undoubtedly lives on and talk of a remake has persisted since the mid-90's, fuelled by Nolan's desire to realise his stories more accurately and extravagentlty, as CGI allows. It's nearly happened too, as recently as 2006, when Bryan Singer ( X-Men, The Usual Suspects )had developed the project to the point where studio space was booked. Financial complications slowed things down, before Singer moved on. The rights are believed to reside with the actor, writer and producer Matt Damon. Michael Bay ( Transformers and Armageddon supremo ) undoubtedly had Logan's Run in mind when realising his 2005 film The Island starring Ewan MacGregor.
Although the film isn't as powerful nor stylish as it appeared when I was a boy, Logan's Run stands as a better than average last shout for it's kind. It's often repeated on both network and multi-channel TV and always reached down for a brush up whenever the next evolution in home entertainments starts to penetrate with consumers, most recently with a new Blu-ray release. Fun, if flawed, Logan's Run is the definition of a product of it's very specific time
3.5/5