Yes, Hal's a gifted test pilot but he's too cocky by half too....! It seems the OTHER Green Lanterns are all too aware of the human race, and a little disdainful of this guy especially. Clearly the entire universe isn't as instantly won over by Ryan Reynolds abs, as the ladies are! Hal's spurned on by a couple of the more colourful (literally) members of the corps, including Brit Mark Strong as the demonic looking Sinestro and the gargantuan Kilowog so beloved of comics readers. Also finding himself getting another look-in with former love, and colleague, Carol Ferris. All there's left to do, if this is to work out okay for the universe generally, is for Hal to quickly (...alarmingly so in fact ) master his new powers and overcome his own fears...
..are you with me so far...?
There's so much to look at, and quantify about this recent release, I'm getting stuck in for an extensive root around. Like Transformers before it, it's one I personally have been waiting over two decades to see so it's taken a while to process my own reflections and observations. All In the hope of finding it's place in the ever-expanding library of comic derived movies and gauging it's success not just as a realisation of the Green Lantern I know, but something more inclusive and relevant in 2011.
Green Lantern (GL)is hardly the only super-hero out this summer. With the stepping up of Marvel Studios "Avengers" series (two films launched this season!) a re-launch of their X-Men franchise and this first film under the DC Entertainment brand. DC, and parent company Warner Brothers, have long lagged behind in the movie stakes. Holding their cards as hero after hero, from their competitors made the big screen first. Exceptions being Christopher Nolan's Batman reboot, its sequel and a belated continuation of their old Superman series. By choosing GL for this summer, DC brings the character to a massively larger audience than were even aware of its existence. Let alone recognised any emblems or themes, the way we "KNOW" Superman or Batman. Perhaps an obvious choice as the comic book and sister titles have been the most lucrative and acclaimed of recent years, guided by the cream of DC's creative staff.
However, does that make it most ripe for translation to a whole different medium..? The most accessible for a general, virgin audience..? Precisely what balance to strike to differentiate this from other SHmovies this season, for those out there who don't even realise there's a difference between DC and Marvel...??? (...yes, I hear such beings STILL walk the Earth!!?)
As movie watchers we take an easy chair, and pontificate after the fact. "OPEN FIRE!!" is the collective cry of the geek massive. So it won't have escaped interested parties that GL had a mixed response. I've avoided reviews, yet still the mood reached me, just 2 weeks since release,and no one is talking about GL. Particularly in the way DC wished. All a deflating experience for loyal fans, as GL has the genetic make-up to please with an evolving, genre fusing mythology, attracting generations of faithful readers. GL's universe has a "look", scale and legacy in the grand tradition of heroics which must've been mouth-watering for seasoned action-director Martin Campbell. During the screening I went to, I could see the reactions coming because whoever you are and how much you know or don't, it's hard not to be very disappointed by this Green Lantern.
From a purely escapist perspective, GL is uncompromising and fun. Displaying production values we demand, and a fluidity which somehow pulls you along like a theme park ride. If standing out from the crowd was a problem, I'd say no one will forget they've seen it! Ryan Reynolds seemed a bland choice for hero Hal Jordan, but he's totally invested in the role. Working to generate real character and feeling from a script which may include the requisite information, yet doesn't flow the way the visuals can.
Blake Lively is little more than good in the under-used role of Carol Ferris, even if there is some depth to the relationship between the characters. She looks pretty and gets into peril in a manner which date Earth based sequences so much it almost feels like a period 1950'spiece. Likewise the nostalgia and romance of air brushed skies and mad scientist's trappings. Speaking of which, Peter Saarsgard is excellent as Hector Hammond. The closest the film really gets to a villain with a face, he plays it so sympathetically it's hard to know who to cheer for as Jordan goes to rescue Carol from his clutches. All set to a score which brings to mind true SF and fantasy greats, like Superman (1978).Those reasons are valid enough to justify GL's existence and understand why plenty of people ARE, still going to see it regardless. You do get what you paid for!
Martin Campbell's track record demands faith. He reignited the appeal of Zorro, and successfully re-invented the legendary James Bond twice with Golden Eye (1995) then Casino Royale (2006). With GL he feels less steady in his handling. Not as suited to something as heavy with CGI and virtual sets. Occasionally GL suffers from what was a presence in the Star Wars prequels, there. More console game than a dramatic presentation. Characters and their surroundings no more in synthesis than some blue-screen work on a70'sTV show
None of that helps when trying to push aside the growing feeling that somewhere between the page and screen GL lost a heart. Excusing this "over-busting of the block" as enthusiasm and pride in knowing they've something with long-standing appeal to draw upon, is one thing. To indulge it's pre-empting the investment and faith of a cinema audience, is a harder task. You see, from it's opening moments GL dumps a huge amount of back-story and "mumbo-jumbo" into your ears and expects you to process and follow it. We're simplyspectating, and its a relief when someone who knows less than us joins in. But as Hal picks up speed with such ease we never really connect with him either. Reacting in a way that lacks any credibility or charm at all. To such sights, sounds and such a bigger picture! Would we react like that..? Even the best of us..? I maintain though this is fantasy, the further you're taking us, the firmer the anchor needs to be. Yes, this huge scary yellow corn flake looks like bad news, but half and hour further in and I bet few can really claim to care. As such it's hard to feel sustained danger, or get the nature of the universal threat in any tangible way.
GL comics have become cinematic, but that's some way into the lore. Decades of it in fact, and that's just since the Hal Jordan version of the character first appeared in 1959 (A Green Lantern book has existed for over 70 years). To fast track new minds so much back story within the first 10 minutes especially is baffling and a huge error of judgement that the film never recovers from. DC take it as a given you've taken every little detail in about peoples, worlds and forces you're just told about. Comics fans feel narked by this; their favourite series mis-represented. Everyone else must be thinking "...what...? what....??? WHAT...????" Starting with the crash down of an alien escape pod, for us to discover more about as Hal Jordan does, would've been much easier and evocative a starting point.
There's no doubt that this is GL as I recognise it, brought to the screen in part. Particularly in it's modern status as a cosmic epic, with huge stakes and an expanded mythology. GL has retained in this film, a language of old fashioned heroism and the poetry of "oaths" and certain universal themes about self-doubt and imported something tragic already. The comic book Green Lantern, as a piece of modern mythology, before the were other corps, a Parallax and no one went nuts and tried to re-write creation itself, remains connected to the pulpy 1950's. In the same way so many of Marvel's heroes are born of the atomic age (all radiation, gamma rays, spider-bites etc...) This quantity WILL similarly affect bringing DC's biggest, most loved and oldest heroes to cinema's if not handled more carefully. I'm looking at The Flash, Green Arrow, Aqua-man....etc. Because even at it's simplest, GL with his huge cartoon generating power-ring resembling an item you'd find in a Kinder Surprise, wouldnever have been the easiest of sell's. Certainly in comparison to say, a tortured billionaire, orphan. Training his mind and body, and using his fortune to become a vigilante.
This film version is unashamed in showing of the roots, so much so it seems an anachronism and that's what's provoking the responses that it has. Some are missing the point and turning up with unreasonable expectations, as "some" always will but you can hardly blame anyone for being a little lost and unsure of their entry point into the story being told.
What those"looking in" for the first time through THIS movie, can't realise is that comic readers recall the first flushes of love they have for a character and know they were nothing like this. Even those who jumped on board for the most recent refining of this story, Geoff John's "Secret Origin"(see left) of which the movie seems to have imported clumsily from. The issue, the page or the panel which burrows a special place in the heart and that never happens through this brand of "downloading" content. So that would never be the method they'd want to see offered to the masses. Fans want that feeling captured, for the most part to share rather than retain an exclusivity or niche distinction.
That slower opening up of mythology, and grasp of supporting cast is personal and impossible to translate from such a spectators seat in such time. Green Lantern has a morality and human interest story at its heart, which is adequate enough if you wield your ring tighter, leaner and with a lighter touch. It's telling that despite colossal action scenes and set-pieces, the sole goose-pimple moment for me was that where Hal got his lantern home, and tried to make it "work".The device itself, tapping into him rather than the other way round. When he found himself reciting an oath he'd never even heard, on his own sofa....? That WAS Green Lantern, and that WAS a tiny sprinkling of cinema magic.
I can't help but look to Thor as an example of how to better tease such a broad canvas, or the handle Michael Bay had on the Transformers (2007) by starting with simply a boy getting his first car. Would it have been impossible to bring GL lock and stock, to the screen..? Keep character and tone yet please everyone with such a outlandish, colourful and most comic of comic book concepts? Yeah, I think it would've. Just with the constant attention throughout gestation, of a godfather figure like the Dark Knight movies have. Nolan's vision of Bruce Wayne's world may not be everyone's, but the realisation and conviction in offering us HIS has proven irresistible and infectious.
Green Lantern's light may not be brilliant or unmissable, but I can guarantee you've seen much worse. Don't believe the "snipe", any more than you would the "hype". As family entertainment it's wholesome enough to deserve that 12A certification, but touches the darker side enough for older viewers.
On the other hand, if you ALREADY have your own idea of what GL:The Movie should be, what makes it tick and your "way in" it will almost certainly be more satisfying, and emotive than this film's. It's with a heavy heart I prescribe that if you're rationing super-hero films this summer, then choose X-Men: First Class, Captain America or Thor, and let the dust settle on Green Lantern until the DVD release. If only because you can re-watch the opening sequences or even reorder the chapters yourself! -3/5
GREEN LANTERN is still at cinemas, and due for DVD/Blu-ray release later in the year :D
This particular role in the production demands the casting of a performer who can switch between theinnocence and almost angelic presence of White Swan, with the dark, seductive figure of the Black Swan. Thomas knows that in Nina he has a quintessential White Swan. But aware that Lily would make the better Black. The teacher forces influences to trigger a darker aspect he believes Nina can access. Little realising that she's not as capable or practised at balancing her own natures..
Nina starts to experience a heightened sensory overload.What she hears feels and sees, seemingly affected by the heady heights her career has at last ascended to and the demands of her latest prized role. The knowledge that this is her one, last chance to take what she's driven herself for, with slower success than she'd have liked. The rapid rise of a younger and definitely more precocious, less intense and inhibited dancer,Mila Kunis's Lily, causes Nina huge inner conflict. The pair strike up a quasi-friendship, with each gaining and learning from the other. But Nina's dangerously close to losing all control and any sense of who she really is in desperation to prove all to her mother, Thomas and indeed herself. To retain the role, over the perhaps more naturally gifted dancer.
Natalie Portman is incredible as the lead in this well-received film bringing the story of the Black Swan to the screen. Her almost timeless quest to understand and embody the dual roles forms a fraught and highly sensitised connection with the viewer. You feel every snip of the nail scissors, and every pull on the limbs as Nina goes well and truly through the ringer.I'm tempted to go with the herd and describe Black Swan simply as a masterpiece. However, that word is inclined to have diminished meaning in the modern world, and points at an exclusivity, that just isn't at the heart of this story at all. It has a root in all ourfrailties, sexuality and the sometimes fractured duality of the human condition.
As in the case of his2008 film The Wrestler, director Darren Aronofskyplaces us "THERE" even sometimes at Nina's very shoulder. As if a devil, OR an angel...? I suppose leaving us to decide which of those we'd be too. Presenting this time, a study of a figure many recognise asthe embodiment of feminity and a universal ambition in the ballerina. A silhouette and inspirational being, from the top of generations of music boxes. Just as Aronofsky made the masculinity of The Wrestler, his muse a couple of years ago. Here though it's a more Hitchcockian tightening grip he holds on viewers, than a melancholy. Black Swan isan even darker, more fantastical tale. Locations and camera work are at oncefilmic, yet real world. Enclosed, yet expansive and what we're directly watching isboth fantasy and reality.That's what Black Swan is really about. Reflection and perception. Tone is, as ever with Aronofsky,something of the art house yet mainstream and universal.A blend that's showing no signs of getting old, in fact quite the reverse. Portman must be one of theactors of her generation. Equally watchable and at home in any genre or role she's been found herself in, right from a very young age in the modern classic,Leon. As Mathilda in that 1994 thriller, she was a girl who had very much been forced to grow up early. InBlack Swan, we see her as a woman, who in many ways is still a girl. Coming to realisations about herself, the conflict in her nature and desires and perhaps finally reaching a rebellious adolescence. She's confronting the shade which must go with every light.
Thebody horror and psychological descent is painful,even though she's not a character it's that easy to like. Still I was elated, as Erica was, to see her making contact with the side to her own psyche which had seemed partitioned off, and fascinated by her deepening relationships with both her teacher and her Mother,Erica. A tragic figure herself, played by Barabara Hersehey. There's a surprising performance byWinona Ryder,as the tormented Beth butVincent Cassel almost steals the movie as the driven Thomas. A fascinating character, so assured and commanding placed opposite Portman's Nina.
Darren Aronofsky and his cast take us through to an astonishing, fraught and visually arresting finale. That's all you're getting from me on this, and I sincerely hope I've not said too much already, in my enthusiasm. This director is bending genres, in every zone of vision. Disorientating and challenging his audience as he does Nina.
The story's an intimate one, bound to provoke very subjective responses, and quite simple at heart. In this instance the balance between serving us something distinctive, intelligent and unforgettable yet dramatic and potent, brings Black Swan close to perfection. I would recommended it to absolutely anyone, though above the age of 18 -5/5
You RememberLaurie Strode....?! She's the one who isn't Jamie Lee Curtis.... Last seen having a bit of a mare at the hands of Shat-faced, human juggernautMichael Myers. After despatching her stalker, Laurie is found in trauma by her mateAnnie's Dad, local Sheriff Bracket. Laurie and Annie, who'd looked 100% "brown bread" come closing time in H1, are two of three survivors from that night: the other being Dr Loomis, still played by cult legend Malcolm McDowell.
...oh, hang on! Make that four!! Myers himself seemingly wakes up when the Ambulance carrying his body is involved in an accident. What's that horse doing in the middle of the road anyway...? Oh for ****'s sake...
Last year I had the welcome surprise ofseeing and really liking Rob Zombie's remake of the 1978 classic thriller/horror "Halloween".John Carpenter's original film had achieved great longevity and made a bigger impact on that genre since Hitchcock's finest, it has always struck me. Anyone brave or daft enough (delete where applicable!) to slip into the directors chair and attempt to revisit that particular storyline was never going to have the easiest of jobs. Nor any resulting film would be met with the most acceptant of audiences.
Zombie (real name: something much less interesting) had a track-record which hardly inspired. Yet he staggered me by delivering a film which struck anagreeable balance between remake and something fresh and valid. Absolutely 21st century, and informed not only by Carpenter's film, but over two decades worth of horror fare which had come since. Not least of allJonathan Demme's Silence Of the Lambs.His roots in the music industry were showing, but had been carefully balanced to serve telling the tale.
So happy with my viewing experience, I made a note to give it a while then catch2009'ssequel, Halloween II(H2)also directed by Zombie. WithH1 (2007)(..as I'm going to refer to it to avoid confusion!) they took the 1978 story and layered it, moving substance in between the framework of the slim premise and offering exploration (..however hokey!) of the damaged psyche of a horror icon. So intoxicating, tense and fascinating that even the textbook final sequences had edge and power. Zombie takes H2down a looser route, using the original Halloween II, which followed in 1981, as astarting point only. The early parts of the film see a remake of the premise to that film, before Zombie spins THAT back around on us. This works well enough in itself, as the divide in H1 had, its just that in this case what follows is Rob Zombie, as a creative force (writer AND director)set completely free.Free to deliver exactly the kind of tosh which many (including my good self!) feared he'd do with H1, in fact.
On one hand, Zombie's film tries tomove forward with the re-imagining of Myers. As a person and the nature of his brand of evil, and where it could possibly come from in a human being. Myers is seen as a boy, as in the first film, but much more often and even more unusually he's a presence without his trademark "shape" mask. The Myers of H2 is often shown as an enormous, bearded man child in a hoody, which of course means that despite the staturehe can move around Haddonfield much easier...in theory. What a shame that he's much more an automaton, and a killing machine than before.
The violence in this film is much more brutal, if not actually that much more graphic, than in H1. I've no doubt this will delight a "certain demographic", simply by being there. To anyone else of course, it all feels insubstantial,regressive and borderline exploitative. Because there appear much less substance and care gone into story and character here, it'snot scaryeither. I've no doubt that Zombie sought to bring us a film which wasn'tthe standard sequel, and had good intentions.His way with the camera has evolved in-between films andhe doesn't just bus in an expanded new cast for Myers to prey upon. It's the impact of H1 forms the backbone of the whole thing.
On the other hand,after going to such effort to depict Michael's journey into insanity, it's cheapened by the extra padding which Zombie attempts to bolster the lore of the remake series with. Great symbolism is attached to awhite horsemodel which his Mother gifts Myers in a ret conned scene back in his sanatorium.Deborah Myers, who'd been such a sympathetic character before, is here transformed into an apparition. Accompanied by an actual white horse, guiding her son almost. Justifying his actions and pointing to a happy place. Some film makers canget away with being that silly(I'm thinkingDavid Lynch and Tim Burtonfor starters!) but it's usually never taken as seriously as inH2. To digest something so pretentious, alongside the carnival-esque schlock which Zombie serves as a back drop here: the titty bars and burlesque snake pits, is lunacy. There's precious little story as it is, and this crazy paved road only makes that more screamingly obvious.
Effort is made todevelop Laurie Strode, and give the talented Scott Taylor-Compton something to get her own teethinto aside from more running and crying. The kind other distressed babysitters, waitresses and cheerleaders would've killed for in past years. It's likewise under-written and the conclusion's H2 comes to on both story and character may have been powerful in the 80's, but not now. After what seems like a decade and a half of cameo parts, Brad Dourifgets to act in H2. Dourif, hardly gifted with subtlety, recreates his role as Sheriff Bracket with ease. It's the only real emotions you'll get from H2, when there's the chance his gobby daughter is in danger again.
I remember reading how Zombie had been reluctant to returnto this franchise, and I can practically feel his agony as he reaches for some nail to hang his hat on here, with H2. Perhaps there would have beenmileage in a more anthology like approach, which let's not forget had beenJohn Carpenter's intentionfor this series to continue in the 1980's.
I could've stood a revisit or two, under different styled directors exploring similar themes. Maybe using the Dr Loomischaracter as an anti-hero...? McDowell relishes this role, it seems, and his struggling in the media spotlight was the only interesting idea in H2. Even those scenes were ruined by a cameo from Weird Al Yankovich (...why folks continue to encourage this guy, is beyond me...! :S ) The result of Zombie's labouring over an angle, isa crap film.Certainly once you get past the hospital scenes. A shame, but I'm kicking myself for not seeing it coming. No one will be demanding more from this saga now, surely..?- 1.5/5
It's 3 years on from when we last saw both Sam Witwicky, as played by Shia LaBeouf, and the Earth-based Autobots still led by the heroic Optimus Prime.The latter seem like they have their metal plates well under the table, keeping a peace of sorts by working alongsideNEST(It's something to do with the army, is all we really need to know!) Sam, on the other hand, is struggling to adjust and make his way in the smaller world. The "real world" of bills, career ladders and relationships.A world he's helped to save from near destruction, twice over. Of course no one believes him, let alone cares, and evenBumblebee(his first car, which revealed itself to be an alien soldier, from a far away, far ago war) isn't returning his calls...!!! "Bad times"...despite the fact he's managed to pull well out of his league again.
...luckily for Sam,things could be about to kick off once more. Secret information being passed around starts to drag him back into the fray and it's not that long before he's being chased by maniacal robot birds of prey (...the classic TF character Laser-Beak, no less!) jumping off stuff and shouting at everyone that they're in gravest peril, "seriously!!". If it ain't broke, why fix it, eh....?
I say "ain't broke" but the harsh truth of the matter is that director Michael Bay, notorious for Pear Harbour and Armageddon, nearly snapped this particular play set in two, last innings.Back in 2009 he followed the undeniably greatTransformers(2007) withTransformers: Revenge Of the Fallen. A film which turned all the worst excesses of Bay's past films up to the max, and displayed little of the heart, humour and realism which had balanced the earlier film so surprisingly well.Bay has apologisedfor this nonsense of a movie, pointing back to the writers strike of that year which proved the death of many a TV show and film.Paramount moved mountains(groan here!) toensure TF2 met it's release date, when they should've have postponed. I was far from the only one leaving the cinema, head in hands and ears-a-ringing. Tills still beeped, but bad reviews and referrals were everywhere, within hours and snow-balled. The fact that Paramount pushed ahead with a third in the face of the near disenfranchising effect TF2 had on it's loyal audience appeareda ballsy move!One that I hope has paid off, becauseTF3 or TF: Dark Of the Moon, HAS gone some way to making up for it's empty predecessor. The plot realigns the parallel worlds of the refugee Transformers, with our own and specifically this average Joe's.Like narrative damage limitation, in action!
Transformers: Dark of the Moon boasts a stronger plot, perhaps than either of the earlier films."More than meets the eye...": Higher stakes, and greater emotional resonance, even for the titular giants. The opening act in particular, where a secret history of the US space programme and1969 moon landingis shown to be part of a much bigger gambit, is incredibly evocative. Recapturing the age, head-locking your attention and instantly engaging imaginations. TF3seemsto be going in the direction every last part of a trilogy should aim for, and pull a rug or two from even the most ardent of devotees feet.
LaBeouf, who's star has continued to rise in and around his headlining this franchise, is as good as ever. Even if there's a hint of going through the motions by now. As a hero,his character is 3/4's Norman Wisdom, to a 1/4 Jason Stathamit seems, and it still works, for now. On the downside, Sam's annoying parents also reappear as little more than comic relief. Bay should've been as ruthless there as he was in culling Megan Fox there. Fox's replacement is British actress and modelRosie Huntington-Whiteleyas someone so unbelievable I can't even be bothered looking her name up on Wikipedia. She fills Fox's jeans nice enough though, and is the link to the story involvingPatrick Dempsey's nasty turn as a human who wants to form sort sort of Cameron/Clegg style co-alitionwith Megatron.
Yes, theDecepticonsfeature in this film too but continue to get the thinner end of the wedge even if Starscream is closer to his persona from the cartoon series. Those original cartoons are undoubtedly what's been looked back to, for inspiration and re-connection of the TF movie series with it's loyalist fans.TF-heads know that golden, chunky and primary coloured time as "Generation 1".How many generations have there been...?!..probably too many..?! Over the last two decades, the Autobots and Decepticons have been remodelled more times than Katie Price's tits, but certain constants have remained. In both character and design. TF3 brings us plenty of that lore, re-imagined if not streamlined, likeSpace Bridges, the Ark and most anticipated of all: Shockwave. The big, one eyed, purpleweapons master from Cybertron.He's a bot of few words, and is a striking presence in TF3 even if little is actually told about him.
The other, more crucial character specifically derived from the cartoon making it to screen isSentinel Prime. He's a bit like Odin, from Thor if you like.Optimus's mentor, and forms the catalyst for this story as thisoriginal Autobot leader, thought long dead, is discovered and woken. Though the back story is tied to the history of the Cybertronian robots, it'smuch less mumbo jumbo than in TF2. The story actually feels like real story again, as both Prime's receive as careful character development as is wise. At times Optimus demonstrates a ruthlessness which finally makes it obvious this creature is adouble hard metal bastard just as kid of the 80's remember him. The tragedy of war-fare and loss, telling on even the disfiguredMegatron. Yes, it's still a film about huge metal men, changing into vehicles/weapons and taking chunks out of each other and any nearby buildings, but it has a slight almost Shakespearean game of guile and cunning working for it too.Leonard Nimoy, SF guruand director ofThree Men and a Baby(let's not forget!!) features as voice of Sentinel Prime. Joiningthe unmistakeable Peter Cullen as voice of Optimus Prime,as he has for most of the last three decades. The flesh and blood cast is filled out by the aforementioned Patrick Dempsey, a wonderful if small role forFrances McDormand, and an increasingly omni-presentJohn Malkovichin his best barking mad mode. There's even a cameo role from legendaryastronaut Buzz Aldrin(he's the one that went on Blue Peter too..) where he proves a tremendous sport,playing alongwith this secret history.
It's not all good news forTF3. The film is 154 minutes in length, leavingfew bums or brains un-numbedby the time the credits begin (actually, it seemed longer!) Although the story has more texture and humour than the last one, it's still oneBIG, LOUD and daft movie.If you have no inner child, don't even remotely consider this anymore than you have the others!
Whilst visuallythe Transformers and their battles are rendered better than ever(...you can actually make out who is hitting who, most of the time, hurrah!!) the whole of the last battle must go on for the best part of an hour. It's indulgent, unrelenting, and utterlydevoid of any novelty. Even if Bay may have beencribbingfrom peers like Christopher Nolan, when delivering certain shots. When all's said and done, it left me with a strong sense ofdeja vu,as the same office blocks, bridges etc were levelled, and soldiers jumped around all over the place. A major factor in why I have to label this film, despite early promise, asthe cinematic equivalent of a "Greatest hits" album.Where was the sense of timing, and a sure grasp even of just thebalanceto this particular film alone? The climax surely should've and would've been actuallymemorablehad the battle been taken back tothe wreck of the Ark, on the face of the moon. With Sam and the NEST boys, space-suited and floating about. Maybe the the title may have made some sort of sense.......?
WithTransformers: Dark Of the Moon, Michael Bay has redeemed his version of the Transformers movies. Even if his fatigue was showing (such is his relief we don't even get a proper resolution, once the fighting stops) There is life in the TF franchise and plenty of scope for more distinctive, hopefully shorter and a bit more fun entries. Just you look to the source material!Maybe even the softest of reboots, if Paramount can attract the creative energies of someone right to steer the whole ship and some other actor to play ringmaster to the real stars of the show: the eternally cool "Robots In Disguise" - 3.5/5
Transformers: Dark Of the Moon is still at cinemas, in 2D and 3D, and will be released on DVD/Blu-ray later in the year.
The journey is complete! In just over 3 years Marvel turned their 40 year-old Avengers line of heroes into a sequence of thrilling, evocative and true to source movies, standing their ground with their peers and left direct competitors, DC Comics and owner Warners, eating dust.
Captain America: The First Avenger (CA) is the fifth film in the un-officially titled Movie Universe series, and it's fair to say the hardest to sell and least distinctive attempted previously. Marvel Studios have boiled the essence of the character down, and focussed on it's real world roots in the middle of the 20th century's biggest historical event. Going for broke, when it would've been all too easy to retcon the entire concept.
You could consider the entire film a flashback, because all but the top and tail are set squarely in the 1940's as the USA is drawn into the conflict which had already engulfed other continents. Young Steve Rogers watches his peers cleared fit for active duty, whilst his multiple applications for a place at their side is rejected due to his size and health issues. To be eventually spotted by Dr Erskine, played so wonderfully by Stanley Tucci, as someone who's courage, determination and sense of camaraderie towers above those almost twice his physical size. Erksine falls foul of agents of Nazi Germany's HYDRA research department, but not before he's enlisted Rogers into the top secret "Project Rebirth". Steve's involvement will see him injected with an experimental serum and become the first of a new breed of All-American Super Soldiers, set to "Sock Adolf in the jaw!", win the war and save the world!!
Initially Rogers goodwill is exploited as an puppet of propaganda, but with his sympathetic allies the hero begins to write his own legend. Captain America's legacy, as a figure in comics, and icon of the second "World War", predates Marvel itself. First appearing in 1941, under the Timely Comics brand, revived then installed into Marvel comics continuity twenty years later, godfathered by Stan Lee. "Cap", as he's known, became a contemporary of the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man and most crucially his fellow "Avengers". Despite the longevity this character has only fleetingly made the journey from panel to screen before. A couple of short-lived cartoons , a Columbia "serial" in the Flash Gordon mould and an iffy movie in 1990. None of these did the character justice, with slim stories and no handle on Cap away from the generic, square jawed. When Marvel Studios announced a dedicated CA film would form the final pillar, assembling their "Avengers" blockbuster, I saw it as un-essential to be honest. One movie I would only see for "complete-ism". Outside The Avengers, this super-hero did little to make my radar. It's an attitude I feel very self-conscious about admitting in light of the fact that Captain America: The First Avenger (CA) is one sensational, star-spangled treat!
Chris Evans, as a former Human Torch (...try and spot the Torch cameo, while I remember!!!) is no stranger to comic to movie characters. He's finally arrived as a major star with his glove-fit role as Steve Rogers: Captain America. It seems like he's in every single scene, and the character can't be the easiest to embody. Ask anyone who's every played Clark Kent! Rogers too is somewhat of a cipher; an over-grown boy scout. How do you colour that, without de-powering him..? He hasn't a line in sardonic wit, a tortured back story nor a fractured psyche leaving him prone to addiction. Evans is given a delightful script which allows more range than anyone could've predicted and compels the viewer to get to know Rogers at requisite pace. Lines and traits the actor can toy with, bring heart and truth. What I loved about the character was how even though his body was so changed by the serum, his voice and attitude remained. His trusting nature making the Super-Soldier just vulnerable enough where it mattered.
Of equal importance is that he's supported by a wonderful cast, off setting any danger the film may appear too straight. Tommy Lee Jones as the gruff commanding officer and Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark (father of Tony) bring broader, comedic touches whilst Hayley Attwell is love interest Peggy Carter. There's a fun double act in Toby Jones and Hugo Weaving as agents of HYDRA. Weaving's especially effective as Johann Schmidt aka The Red Skull, a character of whom the story requires comparatively little. Weaving is just enough to fend off master villain fatigue.
Extra pathos is provided by the depiction of Rogers friendship with old mate Bucky Barnes and the faultless realisation of the pulpy adventure stories and ideals which would've thrilled 9 year olds in the pre-Atomic age. Rogers path, from a frustrated, skinny young man to his destiny as the rallying figure against the "Axis" is brought to screen with relentless conviction and fearless-ness. Unapologetically old fashioned, yet balancing with a relevance to an age where the last decade has been dominated by unrest and an "age of terror".
I talk a lot about a purity in the spirit of adventure. Eclipsing cynicism and pandering to whims of broader pop-culture influence. Embracing the improbable in the Science Fiction and fantasy bracket and celebrating heritage, whilst assuring the continuance of a legacy. That mission statement is true of CA, and Joe Johnson was perfect choice for Director. Hardly a house hold name, Johnston has a track record over two decades like a checklist of the most fun, satisfying family films. Particularly The Rocketeer (1993) which this film most brings to mind, but not forgetting Honey I Shrunk the Kids (1989) Jumanji (1995) and his thrilling Jurassic Park III (2001) Johnsons' steady hand, and ability to seamlessly blend action, drama and the lighter shades, can only be topped by Spielberg in his prime. Audiences have become attuned to these good quality, well budgeted products brought to the screen by absolutely the right creative individuals, like Johnson, for the specific project.
Something I perceive as coming totally full circle with CA, from the first X-Men film in 2000, through cornerstone movies: Spider-Man (2002), Batman Begins (2005) and Iron Man (2008) is also present. It was that film from Bryan Singer which spurned Marvel Comics to redefine it's most famous names, re-starting them in a modern, parallel line called "ULTIMATE Marvel Comics". Decades of lessons learnt, and the eye for lasting appeal was put into practice. None benefitted more than The Avengers: re-imagined as "The Ultimate's" by Mark Millar and artist Bryan Hitch. Hitch rightly gets credit on CA. I doubt CA could've existed in this form if not for their work on the first two issues of that comic. Parts of which are almost a storyboard for the middle third of CA. Yet as latest fruit of the labour, CA is also the most pure to date. Partially down to the period setting, but more so a product of measured, unfolding, linear narrative allowing Johnson's grasp of story and Evan's winning performance, to build and shine.
It's true that they play aspects completely straight, unlike Thor with its fish out of water comedy. In shooting the straighter arrow, CA observes those roots and lifts what was more in danger of appearing glib, jingoistic and flirting with camp, than any hero which has reached the big screen. Stocked with a story you ride alongside and a character in Rogers you like, respect and relate to. This film, in every aspect is much surer of itself, and who it's telling the story for, than Martin Campbell's Green Lantern. Taking it's time with character, cherry picking rather than info-dumping lore, and ramping up the spectacle so much than when events really drop from the hook, you will be on the edge of your seat; heart in mouth. As if that wasn't good enough, there's time to retcon Cap into his own real world history, in a slice of romanticism unseen since Superman: The Movie.
I saw in 2D, yet this was made in 3D, but there was nothing incongruous which pulled me from the story (..again, unlike GL!) The charm of this film will, like that of its re-discovered title character, travel well and comes future proofed. Solidifying the unique identity of this 70 year old emblem, leaving no appetite un-whetted for next years long awaited "The Avengers", currently filming. As if the final scenes are exciting enough, anyone who stays seated through the beautiful end credits, will be rewarded with a signature "secret scene" leading into a breath-taking teaser.That shouldn't over-shadow the separate triumphs and flavour of Captain America: The First Avenger. Many movies have tried to recapture and modernise this era of film-making ( Johnson's Rocketeer, The Phantom and Sky Captain & the World Of Tomorrow etc) This bests them all. Almost certainly the best possible film that could've been made of Cap's earliest adventures and certainly near enough perfect family adventure in it's own right. Unmissable! - 5/5
Captain America: The First Avenger is at cinemas. Screening in either 2D or 3D, and will be released on DVD/Blu-ray later in this year. The Avengers is set for release next Summer...
The Summer movie season has closed, but there is one SF/Fantasy genre movie left to see...an old favourite gets a fresh eye (...again!?) with the release of Rupert Wyatt's "Rise Of the Planet of the Apes". But what's so different about it this time...? Who's it aimed at...? How does this film sit next in the much loved legacy, and what's there to see particularly if the last cinema version of this 40 year old concept just didn't do it for you..? ...the short answer is that this could turn out to be a film pretty much for everyone...
Will Rodman, played by James Franco who people will recognise from the Spider-Man movies, is a driven man. He's spent some years already working on a cure for Alzheimer's. All in hope it will be in time to save his ailing father. Will's research is carried out on a collection of apes, with one being somewhat of a star. At a crucial point, there's a huge gaffe, leading to tragedy and the mothballing of this research. All test subjects, including an infant Ape, are ordered terminated....
Of course, Rodman's a nice guy so can't bring himself to do that. Instead he get's to live out the ambition of many, by bringing in a hairy house-guest! This ape has inherited abilities passed on by his Mum after much testing, and having him at home drives Will on in his search for a cure, behind closed doors. The rest of the story plays out over several years, and proves so involving I'm reluctant to disclose further. Suffice to say that things don't go quite the way Will plans...! I guess if it had done, the movie wouldn't be anywhere near so enjoyable and engrossing.
I'm noting an undeservedly cool response at the UK box office, as it fills the screens at multiplexes in the last throes of the Summer season. 2011 has seen the highest number of big genre movies released, one after the other, in years. Even seasoned movie junkies may wish their block left un-busted, for a few weeks. Rest easy, because Rise Of the Planet Of the Apes (RISE) comes perfectly timed, and rounds the season of in style, and with substance too.
Those 4 words "Planet Of the Apes" come with baggage, it's not unfair to say. You don't even have to be of the generation who remembers the unfolding, 5 film saga which began in 1968. 10 years ago, visionary director Tim Burton coined a whole new term for popular culture when he brought a colossal budgeted "reimagining" of the whole concept to cinema's. So potent are the associations with previous films, 20th Century Fox considered simply going with a one word title ("Caesar", which makes me think more of a dog-food...despite the fact I rarely eat the stuff!) Most people will definitely have pretty firm ideas what "Planet Of the Apes" is; how it works and of course whether they like it or not..! As such, it's a film that will surprise people, when they get round to seeing it. Not only does it stand out like REAL, genuine Celebrity in the Celebrity Big Brother house, but compared to recent big releases, but it's true Science-Fiction. In the oldest traditions, compared to say Transformers which is much more "out there" fantasy.
To the untrained eye, the prospects for this film weren't good. I always had a good feeling about this project and followed it's development keenly. Now feeling totally justified in my faith, and after Green Lantern, that's a considerable relief!! What RISE can count as a great achievement is it's bridged a gap which has appeared between two kinds of genre films over the last decade. Probably since Independence Day (1996) for that matter. In the sense that it was undoubtedly a very expensive, complicated film to make. The CGI is second to none and the scale, when it escalates, gets just about as big as possible whilst staying Earth bound. So at first glance, a populist movie...! Yet it does what some approaching the art-house have in recent times such as Sunshine, Moon and their kind in that it's played straight. About real people and the science not pushed to the background and the moral compass is far from black and white.
Rupert Wyatt (The Escapist) was a odd choice, on a sleeping giant with a major studio, like "Planet Of the Apes". The British director has managed to craft a film which cherry picks the better, future-proofed elements of the original premise. Though it's far from a copy and paste job! Care is taken to give the notions presented, as well as the technology and performances to present them, in a distinctive and affecting way. The Apes themselves, subject to a little affectionate ridicule over the decades, are eerily realistic. The idea they would and could talk to one another through sign language, driven by scientific reality rather than fiction. Similarly their motivations, under Caesar's lead are a separate peaceful existence.
John Lithgow reminds us what a great straight actor he his, when he so rarely gets chance to show it nowadays, as Franco's father. The man who's suffering clouds Will's judgement and also has specific role to play in the narrative. David Oyelowo plays a standard, morally questionable boss, but very well. Only Freda Pinto gets short-changed as the kind of love interest. The relationship isn't given much screen time, evolving in the bits in-between. Pinto gets few lines, but delivers them beautifully. If you think of Megan Fox's function in Transformers, it's kind of like that but with more real acting, and less flesh.
So intensely gripping is the story; so foreboding and fascinating, that you can't help but be hungry for more. Again, the by-product of being a known franchise. People will expect nay demand a sequel. The beauty of the script, what is chooses to incorporate, and indeed leave out or just gesture towards, means that the field is left wide open for anyone (though hopefully Rupert Wyatt again) to deliver that. It's success at the USA box office will guarantee more. I'll stick my neck out and say a straight remake of Planet Of the Apes, won't be the natural place to go. Probably ever, but certainly not straight away.
RISE stands as a prequel to the original Planet Of the Apes and its direct sequel Beneath the Planet Of the Apes, on one hand. It can be viewed in sequence and blend in. Yet the new movie is technically a "reboot", when you take the further three original, lesser screened, movies into account especiaclly. The rebooting does follow the old lore, only updating sensitively, purely to resolutely deliver its story; imbed a tone and certain principles. It works so well, affirming a plausibility which the original films had never strived to. There's one particular, crucial scene in RISE which absolutely wouldn't have worked had they been so vigilant over tone and relevance to 21st century society. At this moment, at my screening, you could've heard a pin drop...yet it could've so easily been the place the film up ended.
In-between the days of Ape-mania in the early 70's, and this film, we've come to understand so much more about Apes. About evolution and genetics. Even with that aside, realism could never have been a watch word when bringing the pulpy book Monkey Planet by Pierre Boulle to the screen, in 1968. The Apes walked, as we do, talked as we do, and even lived as we did. Back then Hollywood knew less about how to build and sustain what we know now as "franchise" too. So the original Apes films, and associated stuff, just rolled with the punches of the media of the 1970's. Eventually to live-action TV, comics and animation a few years before Lucas's Star Wars juggernaut so much as revved its engines. As this potential new sequence moves on, it will by necessity branch out further from the earlier films, but like Paramount's Star Trek (2009) it can continue to tend the roots as it re-interprets, re-defines and thrills.
In the here and now, what's most important to communicate is that Rise Of the Planet Of the Apes is a quality motion picture, and an example of what Science Fiction can do at it's very best. Epic, yet character driven. You'll be checking the forthcoming releases at PLAY.com, for when you can earliest get a re-watch. I'm not sure that's a quality I'd award even the best of the rest of the "class of 2011" movies.
It's has what I will call from now on "The OZ-Factor" Displaying heart, a brain, and courage!!! Literally something for everyone. There are always a tiny percentage of folks out there, incapable of suspending disbelief or engaging with concepts "other-worldly". Even films like this, seemingly further fetched than they'd like. If the cynicism is put to one side, all will see a film loaded with more truth than more conventional event movies. The nature of our own lives, genetics and the thorny issues of animal testing all get explored as much as is wise without pooping anyone's party. Failing that, monkeys are and always will be very cool...so fighting monkey's....? Movie magic ! -5/5
Rise Of the Planet Of the Apes is in cinemas and due for release on DVD/Blu-ray later in this year.
Led by "Babydoll", played by Emily Browning, the girls wage a war across 4 fantastical landscapes! Standing against colossal Samurai demons, hordes of steam powered Zombie Nazi's (...yep, you've read that right the first time ) and robotic train guards on an other worldly express ride... Makes the average night out patrolling with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, look like a stroll round Asda.
The girls have at their disposal, an imaginations worth of weaponry and high tech transports to attempt evening those odds, in what sets it's stall out to be just about as big as fantasy action can get. These tiny dancers face gargantuan foes and tasked not just to stay alive, but retrieve whatever relic is next. If they succeed, and work there way up levels detailed by a wise old man, the idea is they'll will all be set free in both this fairytale like platform game AND reality. Though I use that word loosely as possible.
The bulk of these antics is contained within the imagination of Babydoll herself. A retreat from unbearable darkness in the real world she finds herself in, following the death of her younger sister. Babydoll has actually been committed to a mental heath institute by her step father, as only she knows the real cause of the accident. While she waits to be lobotomised (oh yes, this movie certainly attempts to deliver everything!) the whole concept plays out through her traumatised mind! Traversing the walls between fantasies and realities. But events in one, are reflecting the other...and vice versa. It all sounds very complex, but it isn't really! Director Zack Snyder embellishes this slight fable with that much extravagance and spectacle, as to make even the most genre-tuned mind start to spin. No doubt, in hope that it will all look a lot more profound than it actually is. I'm as much up for something more than a touch left of centre as anyone! Probably more than most, if I'm being honest, but with Sucker Punch..? I have to draw a thick, indelible line.
In those paragraphs above I've summed up Sucker Punch (SP) as best I can, so as to communicate some idea of whether you may get any enjoyment from this film. That's not the easiest thing to nail down when I myself wasn't that sure what I was watching...! Not story wise, I must quickly add. There's nothing here that hasn't been done before, in some of the most perennial classic fantasy of literature and cinema (..I'm thinking Alice in Wonderland The Wizard of Oz, and indeed 1984's Return to Oz for that matter) There's 5 girls all in all: Amber, Rocker, Blondie, Sweet Pea and Babydoll herself and the look like a cross between the Bratz and the Powerpuff Girls, performing all these feats. I get the impression it's all supposed to be well hot, but seeing as they all seem pretty interchangeable...? Even that didn't work for me. To be fair to the actors in those parts, who include High School Musical graduate Vannessa Hugdens, there's not much there to play with.
You don't have to be Freud to get the principle that Babydoll has shifted to other realities as a "coping strategy", if you like. To slay her literal demons, and formulate escape from her fate. I'm thinking more basic than that, as a piece of escapism. Was it a pop video...? Was it a multi level, multi player console game...?? Or was it just a great big wet-dream, from a thirty something bloke who's had the biggest cheese on toast binge ever...?? Whatever else SP may be, it's not actually a film. It exists as a motion picture presentation, yet lacks any real narrative drive, contains no performances to speak of, and almost zero characterisation in the script. Actually, make that no script either. People come into view and say stuff, but few of them actually communicate.
Story wise there's no way in for even the most willing of viewer, with precious little to amuse amidst it all. For a very silly, excessive and seemingly wild and imaginative offering, it's played so straight! I don't think I smiled once through the entire film. Eventually, after almost an hour and twenty minutes, something close to affecting actually occurs. By which time I was well past any points of submission. Besides which, we still don't really know any of these people. Only the total genre novice would've been fooled by any slight of hand between the realities.
Yes, Sucker Punch, like Scott Pilgrim VS The World before it, contains more incredible set pieces and the most imaginative, sumptuous of imagery and landscapes. As one would expect from the man behind 300 and Watchmen. Add to that lavish production design and a heavily produced score, splicing together pop/rock classics with a new wave bent and it goes well past sensory. There's so much, frame to frame in SP that I became de-sensitised to it all, in record time. That would've always been the case when a film-maker is left with seemingly a blank cheque book, and licence to completely indulge their own notions of what a story should or can be...?
Scott Pilgrim, as a movie, worked in a very similar way. Falling at many of the same fences! It was episodic, too pretty for it's own good and repetitive. Still, what Scott Pilgrim had enough of, that Sucker Punch didn't was easy to pin-point. It had characters. People you could relate too, root for or sneer at. So they may not have been likeable or even that memorable but they were there, so it worked to a degree. It was also infectious in it's enthusiasm and reference for gaming and geeking. In contrst, it's impossible to immerse in the world of Sucker Punch. Even the most exuberant of the girls, still seem detached from the roles. The more seasoned cast members, such as Carla Guigino, who plays as Madam Gorski, look pretty bewildered too.
That does lead me to draw attention to one aspect I did enjoy, which again was drawn from MGM's classic Wizard Of Oz. Namely how certain actors play dual roles, complimented to agreeable effect by the re-use, re-dressing etc of the main sets. Such a simple trick, was a small mercy and just as evocative, maybe more so, as any CGI visuals. I'm not sure if this counts as a spoiler or not, but I'm going to mention the fact that we never see the dances Babydoll performs, when she's entering the fantasies. A rare moment of restraint, where something is left to the imagination. Giving us a taste of her detachment. This and whatever oblique points Synder is intending to make are rendered impotent by the build up of staid performances, insipid dialogue and points of reference. When that's the case any message a film's trying to get across, just washes right out.
Zack Synder has made some of my best loved films of the last decade. He's very keen on giving the audience an eyeful and then some, here reaching saturation point. I hope he's got it out of his system in time to handle Superman in the forthcoming Man Of Steel, with more care. Snyder perhaps earnt a folly, but this really isn't for me. I only hope that with the partnering with Christopher Nolan, Snyder will make a film as hypnotic, epic and multi-layered as Watchmen again. Yet populist too, as Superman should be for everyone. In comparison, I'm struggling to see who Synder imagines he's committed Sucker Punch to celluloid for...! What's the demographic(s) they're targeting this nonsense at.....?
John Hamm, from TV's acclaimed Mad Men series, comes out of things with some dignity. Maybe by virtue of the fact he's only in about 3 scenes. Oh yeah, Scott Glen's in it too..! the obligatory "Mr Myagi" part. He doesn't speak very often and whenever he does..? Well, he doesn't actually say anything. Not interested..? Nah, I don't blame you. - 1.5/5
Sucker Punch is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
Now here's a film that doesn't hang about. Following a tense, eerie and affecting stand-off at the town's baseball field, the situation rapidly escalates. Pretty soon it's clear a deadly toxin has found it's way to the water supply for this quaint little American town. Turning neighbour against neighbour and even family upon one another. It indiscriminately turns all who so much as drink a drop from a tap, into axe wielding, or actually more i this case pitch work wielding, maniacs...!
To just leave it at that and say "go see", would be a simplification and under sell of a film which may look like just another 1970's "Horror" remake. But in actuality proves an incredibly powerful, exciting thriller. Easily eclipsing it's original incarnation, and most of it's 21st century peers. Furthermore making director Breck Eisner (of retro actioneer "Sahara" )look like a serious contender, and one to watch for the future.
Timothy Olyphant, the undoubted breakout star of HBO's Deadwood series, and Radha Mitchell star as expectant parents David and Judy Dutton. Both are crucial, respected members of this small community. He's the Sherriff, of course, and she's a medic. They find themselves sealed within the boundaries of the doomed town, when the "powers that be" decide on drastic action to contain this outbreak. Leaving the uninfected to their deaths, and gradually erasing the whole area from existence. The Dutton's band together with a couple of co-workers, in a scramble to some sort of safety...
Even the legendary "Zombie Master" George A Romero (Night Of the Living Dead) who conceived and directed the 1973 cult original film, concedes it wasn't his best work. The film is treasured by Horror fans, of course as Romero is a key figure in the evolution of the genre. Any output from him, particularly in his heyday deserves attention. However the story was perhaps bigger than the limitations of that production, even in context to it's era. Romero was executive producer with some creative input on Crazies 2010 style, as he had been on the hugely successful remake of Dawn Of the Dead. The script, standing as a sensitive, relevant and focussed reinvention of the original premise comes from Ray Wright and Scott Kosar. Kosar responsible for a similar reworking of Tobe Hooper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
For his part Eisner incorporates some of the more memorable ideas and imagery from Romero's film, but this is no re-tread nor homage to an era of film-making gone by (eg. Gus Van Sant's Psycho ) The Crazies maintains the small-town feeling of isolation and despair as something no representative of the American way of life is eaten from within, but uses it's locations, limitations and voice better. It's set-pieces, such as they are, sparingly. In terms of expected confrontations between individual characters AND spectacle, like an ambush at a car wash (surely the most 70's of all locations left in the film!) All roads point toward a bigger, bleaker picture just enough without us losing affinity for this small collection of brave everyday people, whose journey we share.
The Crazies isn't mindless mayhem either. It's actually very restrained in regards to gore, preferring to play the suspense card. By modern standards, it's a horror film more by association to it's originator. Belonging just as much in the SF and thriller genres. It also exists as word of warning, about how this kind of situation could be so heavily handled. The masked, nameless and voiceless soldiers of the US military make for just as sinister a presence here as those turned demonic by the toxin, as they employ zero tolerance measures to extinguish this threat at source. The trapping of the remnants of normal folks, who actually represent everyone's idea of a simple, contented life rather than simply the USA, between the two forces all works up to a riveting finale. The suspense just doesn' let up, even if you've seen this kind of movie a few times. That's down to great casting, particularly in Olymphant's case. I shall definitely seek out his other work, such as hit series Justified based on his earnest, vulnerable but principled performance here.
Okay, I'll step back from this adoration, and get some perspective now. I'll admit no one has "reinvented the wheel" in bringing The Crazies back to the screen for the home cinema generation. But it does represent a perfect example of what SF and yes, even Horror can still do at their best. Supplying a mature mix of human interest drama, chills, adrenaline (..watch for an early fight scene with an undertaker and his saw!)
Romero's film came not long after Vietnam, when the public mistrusted their rulers and protectors, just as that feeling has resurged maybe, in the modern "age of terror"...? This film also offers nods enough to the black comedy sensibilities which were prevalent in the best of Romero's work, but never enough to compromise the threat, and growing despair. Human interest, has replaced much of the original's lauded social subtext. In delivering the story afresh to more attuned, sophisticated audiences, that's no bad thing either.
The key to the worth of any story, maybe even more so when remaking either an old film or adapting from any other media (..witness the new film version of TV classic Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy!) is how to make it relevant to attract and retain your chosen punters. By those standards alone The Crazies does it bit to redeem the notion of the remake, not least of all because absolutely anyone who it could possibly appeal to will not regret hitting the PLAY button. - 4/5
The CRAZIES (2010) is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
Are you sitting comfortably....? Then we'll begin: Once upon a Time, there was a girl....
In this case it's the slightly pale and so weak, gangly looking Hanna. Aged 16, she's been brought up by her widowed Dad, to become a finely tuned killing machine. With hand to hand combat skills matched by a sharp intellect, resilience and resourcefulness. But why go to all that bother, when then two live such a simple co-dependant existence? Cut off from the outside world, not just in the case of make-up, iplods and boys, but ALL other human contact in the dense, wintery woodland of Finland.
Like so many folk tales that originate from that part of the world, and very much the cornerstones of storytelling as we know it, the answer lies in the form of a "big bad wolf". One who's been quietly waiting, since Hanna was an infant. They knows her father of old and have a distinctly nastier plan than simply blowing their house down, when catching up. There's an early, drastic need for the status quo to change. Something Dad has been preparing for, obviously, when he deliberately gives away the location of their sanctuary of 14 years.
Hanna's sent off into the yonder, whilst he makes his own journey. We follow her finding her feet, friendship and unearthing the most unexpected questions, that she hasn't been prepared for. "Hanna", released in cinemas earlier this year, may well be at it's bare bones a series of "cat and mouse" encounters, and a familiar fable about revenge. What it's been enhanced with, in terms of the top draw cast, fresh and vibrant actions sequences and an atypical soundtrack, creates something as touching and personal as it is mythic and outrageous. Most valuable of all, Hanna turns out to be a film with a cross genre, and cross generational appeal.
The director is Joe Wright, lauded for his film Atonement a few years ago, which I seem to have managed to miss. Though I can see why this seems a bold choice, for Wright. It's tense and exciting, confident and a quietly funny film, a world away from period drama. Owing as much to the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, as it does 21st century thrillers like The Bourne Identity. Wright casts again from the company on that previous film, Saoirse Ronan as Hanna. A cross between sweet "Heidi" of the eponymous children's classic, with the scary/cool, Hit-Girl from "Kick Ass". Wright gets an incredible performance from Ronan, punching her weight and then some in a small but impressive cast.
The adventure which starts to weave, like a web, out from this lone girl gets more affecting as we get to know, and understand, what makes her tick. Instinctive reactions to fight or flight, when played next to the tenderness and vulnerability of her first kiss for example, make for curious viewing. Ronan plays both aspects scarily well. I had no problem at all, believing that this fragile innocent could give me a right hiding, but you want to protect her. Cate Blanchett's Marissa is every wicked stepmother you could name, with a great dollop of Bond villain, and a hint of Cruella DeVille. Bana's character Erik, her ex-CIA agent Dad, is maybe even more an archetype. But his stillness: a tender brand of detachment, makes for an unnerving presence even when not on screen. We never forget these are events he's set in motion. Eric Bana proves as versatile, and watchable as ever as Erik.
The joy and fascination of the story kicks in when time catches up with Hanna. The bad guys have her in their sights, as she ventures from the timeless tranquillity of home, into a journey across continents, and a 21st cenurty populated by sights, sounds and people she's only been told, or read about. Hanna holds true to Erik's teachings and a certainty of her own identity which is about to be cruelly stripped from her, by the pursuing Marissa, as played by Blanchett and her henchmen. Wright only anchors the story to a specific time, when he absolutely has to, as this is a folktale in essence. You couldn't get more ageless than the home she shared with her father, or the expanses of desert where Hanna first meets a typical nuclear family. Even the echoing CIA building, the lair of Cate Blanchett's "White Queen", Marissa is starkly shot, despite being ultra modern.
Of course it's Hanna's childhood normality that represents the fairy tale to us watching. Whilst its OUR real world which she's been read to sleep with stories of. A clever bit of reverse, reminding me of Lewis Carroll's Alice. Hanna's wonder and her open mind to everyone and everything makes her a unique lead character within a revenge thriller, and within a teen friendly mainstream film.
The biggest contrast comes when Hanna makes her escape through the desert, and befriends Sophie. Hitching a ride with this teenagers whole family aboard their camper van, across Europe. They're very free-spirited though do as the questions you'd imagine parents would. Olivia Williams and Jason Flemying bring subtle humour as Sophie's Mum and Dad. Hanna's story becomes somewhat of a comedy of errors. Which may not be as funny as it would like to be, but does the deed. All those lighter moments are played absolutely straight, as most of the funniest things people say and do, tend to be in real life. Maybe this gives Hanna a continental sensibility reminiscent of Luc Besson's classic Leon, for example. Sometimes the placing of these scenes does play mild havoc with the flow of the action. When it's all so much fun, I doubt you'll mind any more than I did.
So what makes this film a genre piece then....? Well, to point to the where's and why's in the plot, cos let's be fair, there ain't THAT much of it, would spoil your enjoyment. It doesn't possess twists, but what does develop has a power in context. Because of how we're drawn in by Ronan's dysfunctional fairy tale princess. There's also the fact that much of the action is overtly fantastical. Stylised as anything you could possibly imagine: Hanna moves as cool as it looks and sounds. Which brings me to The Chemical Brothers throbbing, killer of a soundtrack you'll find stuck in your head afterwards. Like a mix of something you'd find coming out of an old music box, with digital age club music. A huge contributing factor to the flavour of Hanna.
Yes, the film is a bumpy ride and I've already used the old "it's a bit like this...and a bit like that" a couple of times. This may do Hanna a disservice and make it appear derivative. Not that it isn't, but the movie offers is a well stirred brew of all of those things to the point where it can be enjoyed equally by a broader audience than the Bourne's or Stormbreaker's. Hanna boasts a unpredictability and raw power which you don't find in children's, or teen and up orientated fare like Twilight. In terms of violence, it may be brutal but it's never that graphic. Observing the business model of the best thrillers, in playing on that you don't see, as much as that you do.
Hanna was a pretty big, surprise success. A furious, heart warming, dreamy though tidy tale which will stand up to a rewatch or two. If you haven't had it referred to you, you certainly will find yourself recommending Hanna to someone you know, at a later date. - 4/5
HANNA is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
I know what you're thinking..." Nicholas Cage don't half seem to make a lot of movies..?!" At least he's not giving the crazy eyes, from the sleeve of this SF extravaganza from late 2009. That's enough to help KNOWING stand out a little from other output. I'm aware I'm a late arrival where this film's concerned. Whatever you're into, odds are you've seen at least 2 Cage films since this too, so let's recap: This is the one with a time capsule being buried on school grounds, back in 1959. A metallic cylinder filled with pictures students have drawn as told by Teacher. Drawings imagining life 50 years on, for the pupils of 2009 to unearth, of course! Aww...nice thought! Moving forward to 2009: Nic Cage's son goes to this school and gets gifted a very specific "drawing" when the capsule is opened. He brings home a page just filled with a series of unrelated numbers.
Nicholas Cage plays widower Dr. John Koestler, an astrophysicist. Good job he wasn't a milkman, or this would've been a very short film! John becomes fixated on these numbers when he accidentally discovers some serious coincidences. Decoding the numbers as dates and body counts of a multitude of tragic world events and natural disasters. What's worse is that he works out there's only a couple left to occur, according to this "message". Whilst all this is going on, his young son Caleb is hearing voices and seeing visitations of strange figures. Plenty to get your teeth into then! From here on KNOWING serves a melding of two or three corners to the SF genre, as we follow John Koestler's increasingly wild actions to prevent those final disasters. A SF tale in the spirit of The Outer Limits, and covering similar themes to M Night Shymalan's Signs. KNOWING is equal part disaster movie, with generous helpings of horror and conspiracy thriller on top. Amidst this mayhem he draws in the descendants of the girl who made that original list of numbers. A young girl called Abby and her mother, played by the enchanting Rose Byrne.
KNOWING is the latest film, to date, from Alex Proyas. He directed The Crow, in 1994 and went on to make cult favourite Dark City and intelligent block-buster I, Robot. The latter being the one emblazoned across posters, as main draw. Based on that link, I can imagine general movie-goers may find KNOWING a little over-whelming and indulgent. Whereas genre fans will revel in the excesses and sheer audacity of the thing! There's much tried and tested, all wheeled out. Plus facets of Greek myth and X-Files like shenanigans, which have never truly fell from favour.
Cage is at his most hair-raised and frantic here, as the haunted Dr Koestler. He's never a reason either to see, or avoid a movie, old Nic. Here he's playing his age, or thereabouts, which makes a change. I'd say KNOWING is one of his better recent choices. It showcases all 4 of his modes! We get "Thinking Nic", "Crazy Nic", " Action Nic" and "Soppy Nic" (see left) When the brown-stuff really hits the fan though, it's mostly the 2nd one. For an intelligent bloke Dr. Koestler pulls some daft stunts! Somewhere along the way absurdity outweighs the tolerance for disbelief. Whilst not something I always mind, KNOWING gets more serious, to the point of sermon, in tandem.
Despite its intriguing opening chapters, some interesting concepts and jaw-dropping set pieces ( most notably a spectacular airplane crash in one continuous shot ) KNOWING proves it's own undoing. Wearing even the most willing passenger, a little weary by the time we're tasked to swallow a finale which is rather......how should i politely put it, "BIG...?"
Since it was released this movie's been referred to me more than once, by folk aware of my tastes. Only when I'd gotten to the last reel of the film, did certain comments race back into my memory. All had mentioned the "ending" (the way some like to) General feeling being very much that the last act of KNOWING feels belonging to a different film altogether. Now, I've seen it I recognise the point when that occurs. However, your perceptions of the ending and the relation to the story being told across the full 100 minutes very much depends on who you are. On how you've processed what you've seen up to this point in the plot.
Here's where I have to clearly warn I'm drifting into SPOILER territory. Anyone who intends catching KNOWING based on my WORDS up to now, should maybe close the page (...okay.....have they gone.....? Then the rest of us can carry on...)
Yes, breaking with my usual MO, I'm going to spend time addressing the ending to KNOWING. It's a couple of years old now, so i'm thinking a good percentage of those happening upon this offering will have already seen it. So this is the way the land lies:
Once again, 2nd warning, going into River Song mode: SPOILERS!
The Earth's revealed to be a controlled, cosmic lab project of sorts, by entity or entities unknown. John Koestler finds himself as tiny part of this, as the rest of us. Turning the tables on the Professor. Those luminous figures who've stalked Caleb and were present at the original internment of the time capsule, if you look real close, revealed as shepherds of humanity. Caretakers or administrators...? Maybe all of the above. As they slip away from their near-earthly bodies they look a lot like "Angels of the Lord", with wing and halo's: the works!
The experiment has reached a conclusion, with the final event as prophesied by the numbers, the "Angels" gather their findings and go on their way. The results, to be carried through to another phase. That'd be young Caleb and Abby. They're taken off by the Angels, aboard an organic "vessel"....away from Dad. Koestler's left to die with the Earth, after making peace with his estranged Father with a man-hug, of course. When we last see the children they've been given a rabbit each, decked out in new white linen, and dropped off on fresh new surface world. A resounding validation of "creationism" as a big science we can't comprehend. It's crystal clear that as Abby, Caleb and the ......rabbits ( no, I'm still drawing a blank there, sorry...) run through the fields of shimmering, golden grass, they're representing the Biblical "Adam and Eve". Heralding the commencing of a new Earth, as the Bible had told ours. They're frolicking in Eden, under the tree of Life. Watched over by Angels.
For anyone still scratching their heads, stick with me. Early on in KNOWING, I'd picked up, as you may also have, on certain themes underlining this apparently spooky cut of prime hokum. About the Koestler character in particular. The key to the whole film lies in the scene in the 21st century class room where he tests his students on our Sun. The exchange he has with them, where he shoots down their ideas about anything resembling a "master plan" or divinity with a bleak and clinical statement about science, evolution and the like. Then there's Koestlers relationship with his estranged Father, a Pastor. He rejects his entire upbringing and hasn't spoken to his Father in years, despite his late wife urging him to do so. This being a mainstream US movie, were they ever going to really let it lay there....? Risk the disenfranchisement, so early on, of such a large, ticket buying, and very, very vocal percentage of the American public....? If you consider that harsh, just look back at the reception for Ricky Gervais' film The Invention Of Lying, the year before.
Even that aside, any competent film is going to want to take the lead character on some sort of journey. Awaken something they don't know or believe so early on as this. Once you clock that point, there quickly becomes only one clear destination the actual story is heading in. Even if we can' possibly know the finer details. Of course this will be a story about finding faith. Sure enough, by the time the Earth is starting to over-cook like the Genesis planet in Star Trek III, he's calling to his wife that he'll see her again soon: hooray, he's fixed!! A believer again!
Now please don't see this as an affront to the people of the US, or their culture: I think it's fair to say that as regards religion, the US is considerably more god-fearing than the UK. As soon as Koestler's attitude towards his father was explained, alongside his turmoil, borderline alcoholism and his certainty in science, I'd rumbled that this wasn't going the way of gothic, or the ghost story. Which was seemingly what many expected, and almost needed from this. I understand this, of course! Just look at how the film was marketed. I'd not seen a great deal of this BEFORE I'd seen the film though ( I purposefully avoid much promo, this being one of the very reasons) So to me, taking on board all I'd noticed throughout this consistently lunatic movie, the ending was totally and utterly in keeping with the rest.
My own belief's don't feel affronted here, I should assure. KNOWING may attempt to crow-bar open closed minds to a degree, but it's still an effort to entertain which succeeds. I've not the faintest idea how anyone who follows a particular faith, may view this. I'm sure I'll find out in time. The conclusion is valid as any other ending, at least guaranteeing few will forget whether they're seen KNOWING or not. Proyas has made a film of intensity and quality, which may be too much of a cocktail of the outrageous generally speaking. For SF fans on a pizza night or the odd new age hippy out there, it will be a feast. Totally impossible as it may be, to take KNOWING seriously as was intended, that doesn't mean there's not plenty to enjoy. - 3/5
KNOWING (..OR KNOW1NG, as it's written!) is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
Agent Tom Greer (the one who looks like Bruce Willis) has, like everyone else this vision of the near future, been experiencing the real physical world only by "remote control", via his own "surrogate". These hi-tech, impeccably groomed and good-looking robotic avatars of "us" have revolutionised society. Insuring human beings can be physically safe and comfortable at all times, in their homes, but still live a full life. Work, socialising etc. is all done through a Surrogate, which can be replaced and upgraded. Making real life and the Earth a domain similar to the online worlds of such as World of Warcraft or The Sims, as they are now.
Greer and his partner Peters (Rahda Mitchell) investigate when a college student, with links back to a man who played a key role in this electronic miracle, is murdered. Opening a family sized can of worms and a need for answers to a question the growingly complacent world had hoped would even never be asked: who can be trusted, in a world mostly crime and disease free but where everyone hides behind a mask. All that's needed to operate one of these "Surries" is a functioning brain, and a big futuristic lazy-boy to perch in, permanently.
I've been catching up on some genre movies released this last 18 months or so, which I've not got round to up to now. Like Knowing, which I talked about a few weeks ago, Surrogates which was actually released in Autumn 2009, is a film which provokes definite reactions. Where it differs to that Nick Cage extravaganza is firstly in origins. Surrogates, like Willis's more recent movie "Red", is another story derived from the world of comic books. "The Surrogates" was a 5 issue mini-series for Top Cow comics, in the mid 00's which gaind some acclaim and has since been sequelled. Like a majority of comics properties, this version has a loyal fan base which never makes adapting any concept of narrative for a second medium, the easiest job in the world. You can't please everybody, all of time and never is that more true than in comics. I'm happy to report that Surrogates: The Movie is a far better than average SF movie. Perhaps more crime thriller, than action film (though there is some superb acxtion sequences) and offers a curious spin on concepts and questions which probably first engaged with the mass audience in The Matrix, back in 1999 and have increased relevance in line with advances since then.
Surrogates was directed by Jonathan Mostow, who made U-571 and the fantastic Kurt Russell starrer Breakdown, and also inherited the poisoned chalice of the Terminator franchise from James Cameron in 2003 (T3: Rise of the Machines). Whatever you could level at his filmography up to now, it's never been short of adrenaline or atmosphere. Here he successfully walks the fine line between serving a stimulating SF story, which does cast a fresher eye to ideas and questions which have been offered before, and something which will appeal to more people that brand of noir-ish, cerebral fantasy tends to. Surrogates knows its place, and doesn't hang about, telling it's story satisfyingly, in under 90 minutes. A fact which shouldn't pass by radars in an age where many films seem elongated and stoic or under-nourished and padded out.
As for the cast...? Well, it's not the most naturalistic script in the world so some of them come off better than others. Ving Rhames seems ridiculous in his role of anti-surrogate spiritualist "Prophet", but at least is amusing. The ever reliable James Cromwell plays the same kind of part he also had in I, Robot as Dr. Lionel Carter, though he does get to hang round a tad longer this time. Rosamund Pike, who was so great in a James Bond film a decade ago and I've not seen much of since, features prominently as Agent Greer's wife tragic Maggie. She's superb as this Sci-fi Stepford Wife, as is Bruce Willis in the lead role.
The sight of a digitally youth-ed Willis would be weird enough in any case, but sporting a thick head of blonde hair and faultless complexion proves a spooky presence. Not as distracting as Tom Cruise's grey barnet in Collateral, despite being digitally rendered! There's a vocal group of movie consumers who rate Willis's movies based solely on the number of windows he jumps through, preferrably in a vest. He does less of this here, being a man of advancing years. However, he hits every other mark you'd expect as the world and marriage weary, old "badge".
The way the "Surries" themselves are realised isn't as flashy as it could've been, and that really strengthen the human interest angle. People don't choose to look like their favourite movie or sports star, or whatever in the new world. Opting for a version of them which they feel represents them at their their very best, either as they "were" or how they always wished themselves to be. That's what brings the characters of the Greer's with the floundering marriage, both to life so much and thus connecting the viewer to the real worth of this film. When the action does comes it's as polished and jolting as we've come to expect from Mostow.
Now I will concede that Surrogates isn't the kind of film to change the world, or the landscape of movies like others before it. It still owes too much to that language of The Matrix, the frothiness of Avatar and even cyber-punk glamour and Sam Slade quality of Blade Runner, to ever be anything but an "also-ran". Then there's the inescapable truth than some of the dialogue is preposterous. But where some may find this a spell-breaker and frustrated by the conspiracy which backseats more traditional elements (punch ups, car chases and snogging do all feature though!) I felt happy my needs, were all served in style.
So I unreservedly stand up in defence of Surrogates as a worthwhile and fun movie. An inclusive SF movie, which non genre fans should enjoy if they fancy a fix of something out of the ordinary, and possessing enough intelligence to satisfy veterans. Yes, something for everyone here! Offering those large SF themes in such a way as anyone can relate, and contrast to contemporary scientific and technologic advances....whilst featuring enough of the "white knuckle" to stop attention focussing on it's lesser strengths. - 4/5
SURROGATES is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
GAMER, released in 2009, is a highly charged, high concept and high-ish camp SF thriller. In this weeks version of our future, the human race is being gradually absorbed into the ultimate dream of any real-life gamer, courtesy of billionaire Ken Castle (Dexter's Michael C Hall ). Already having pioneered the technology to create a whole "Society", in the same physical space as our own, Castle has created in essence a new underclass. Unfortunate's will sell themselves into that domain, to be used for set time a day and that they will have no recollection of. But of course they can be used in any way, and come to all kinds of harm.
In GAMER we pick up the story of the next innovation, taking gaming mainstay the first person shooter, to the ultimate level. "SLAYERS" enables those with enough money, from wherever in the world, to remotely compete in a battle to the death. An actual physical death for those human beings they're controlling, but one Gamers can just plug out of. So it's a risk free adrenaline rush where they can live out their most brutal fantasies. Body counts are high and life expectancies short, but it's all seen as morally permissible because all controlled combatants are convicted criminals.
Whilst I do come to 99.9% of the movies I talk about here, totally cold (barely a trailer!) in this case I'd read a little on GAMER a few months ago. You may have seen my review of Neveldine and Taylor's CRANK 2, which I thought was heinously under-cooked and over-worked. As nauseous as C2 made me, I could at least appreciate what they were TRYING to pull off. Their relentless immediacy and fearless splicing of concepts and influences. Plus, in the intervening time these two guys have inherited the GHOST RIDER franchise and their take on that is due early next year. I wanted some indication as to whether they'd perhaps evolved their style for follow up projects. Generally, GAMER seems better received than the earlier film, and yes it's a step in the right direction. However, it falls into many of the same pit falls, adding some insult to injury in not even affording ticket holders any real way of locating or connecting with their story. This time there's no carry over from a previous film, which had been a saving grace of CRANK2.
Starring as the noble, naturally wrongly convicted hero Slayer "Kable" is Scots actor, Gerard Butler. Kable has become a massive global cult-figure, with millions thrilling to his record-breaking victories. So this is the guy with the back story who will anchor such a high concept, and tap into 2 generations worth of real-life gamers imaginations, right? We need to root for him, so demand to know the guy. In the crucial supporting role of teenage Gamer, "Simon" is Logan Lerman (Number 23, Butterfly Effect). Simon is also afforded a celebrity of sorts, though we only see him enclosed within his immersive gaming zone, at home. Kable's been taken from his home of course, and his family. The small chance he can somehow escape and be with his wife and child, having cleared his name, is what's keeping him focussed. Simon's is a bottomless pocket and inflated ego.
So we have two leads, but both flit in and out of mind and vision. Leaving no line through the general, not actually that complex story. GAMER is such a fractured film, it's impossible to form any real opinion of/or identify with Kables's plight. Let alone "feel". This is despite Butler's likeability or the old style action hero mixture of charm and presence he exudes, just as clearly here as in better films (300, Law Abiding Citizen ) We're meant to be irresistibly revolted by Simon, as he's so narcissistic in direct comparison. Lerman plays him well, but he's no better served by this under-written role.
Searching for some way in, I found myself liking the villain of the piece initially much more! Michael C Hall leaves no piece of scenery, real or virtual, un-chewed as the ruthless and blinkered Castle. After multiple seasons of SHOWCASE's fantastic DEXTER, it's strange to see Hall actually smiling his Joker-like smile. His portraying Ken Castle as a nasty Bill Gates figure is the only interesting, fresh angle....who then disappears for much of the middle act and we're left with two strangers, in Gamer and Slayer. Only over two thirds into GAMER, which is hardly a long film, do things start to look up, and Kables journey starts to resonate.
In stalling formation of something so essential as a story, plus that characterisation, until ridiculously late GAMER proves disastrous. After deciding to just enjoy the pretty pictures, I found it almost impossible to re-engage. I must be fair to directors Neveldine and Taylor. Some of even the most minimal locations are so dusty and evocative, the gaming arena seems as scary a place as should be. A futuristic Spartacus, juxtaposed with and urban Narnia of "Society", where Kables wife has become a sex-worker. The CGI brings it all so beautifully and fiercely to life. In cutting together Kable and Simon for certain scenes, it heightens tension (such as it was) in key battle sequences. Some of the ideas and the way the movie places us inside sensorial concepts, are so fantastic I could have a little weep that GAMER isn't so much better.
Perhaps I'm in a less forgiving mood, after having seen another recent SF thriller explore related topics considerably better in Surrogates (see below) Looking back through the annals of SF at other films who've done likewise over the decades, GAMER isn't worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as pulpy stuff like Rollerball, Logan's Run etc. Or even "nutty as Squirrel-shit" Arnie movie The Running Man (1987) which it has most in common with on paper. They boasted sharp enough satirical edge to bypass obscurity, achieving cult status. What passes for humour in GAMER is a bizarre dance sequence featuring Castle and henchman, as Kable reaches their lair. Another error of judgement, at a critical moment which blinks any notion of worth, like a balloon, full in the face. Think the notorious Godzilla fight scene in CRANK 2 and you're close.
In all honesty, I feel hesitant to recommend this on any grounds whatsoever. Despite the odd positive, even when it starts doing the rounds, late night on multi-channel TV I can pretty much guarantee there'll be something better on. No matter who you are, and whatever appetites you're figuring GAMER may meet, even in the most rudimentary respects, you will come away feeling under-fed.- 1.5/5
GAMER is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
MONSTERS (2010) drops you off in the here and now, as the combined Mexican and American miltary make great efforts to contain and manage this new threat, and the colossal, tentacled creatures who are stalking huge portions of those provinces. That's some threat, both to the physical safety of the populace and perhaps beyond. Long term, as the eco system is "corrected", so these immigrant life forms can thrive and evolve.
This premise and the way MONSTERS pushes us sideways into it's parallel world is sensitive and affecting. Even if, geographically, it's a far cry from the bus depots and cul de sacs of the UK. Within minutes we're at grass roots, with real people whose day to day has changed forever. They demonstrate an unrepressable spirit, and because we pick up the story some years on from the crash, this isn't a disaster movie. The dust has mostly settled and those affected are as used to seeing these gargantuan beings, as they are the military presence. Like the creatures, they've adapted to the new status quo though obviously, dependent on their station. The film has a universal reach because of this, and just as crucially the two main characters we explore with.
Scott McNairy plays Andrew Calder, the rather embittered photo-journalist from the states, hired to deliver the daughter of his wealthy news magnate boss, back home to safety. Samantha, played by Whitney Able is an spirited marine biologist, engaged to be married soon after her return. They aren't exactly polar opposites, but not far off at first sight. He's jaded, with a crazy-paving style personal life, whilst she's idealistic and seemingly has it all worked out. Of course, deep down could it be they've more in common than they can know? If a trek overcoming the atrocities and adversities of the massive "infected zone", to the new white concreted perimeter walls of the USA doesn't bring people together, and surface hidden insecurities and pain, then nothing will eh..?
Yes, regardless of the scenery we are mostly in the realm of character driven Science Fiction here. Romance too, though with a smaller "r" and with a very specific idea of what the script of MONSTERS wishes to say about people. How seismic, broad threat can affect small, personal change as much as the sweeping, almost apocalyptic. MONSTERS is an intimate film. Placing us in such a unique and evocative part of the world anyway, but even it's beginnings are more out of a back-packers guide more so than the tourist track. The naturalistic look and dusty soft-focus realism is filled with the genuine inhabitants of it's streets and houses. I've since read that first time director Gareth Edwards didn't even get permission to film in many of the locations, and there aren't actually any extras anywhere! Indeed much of the interaction between them and the small company of actors was barely scripted at all.
This is
famously the film where people will tell you
"the effects were done by one bloke on his laptop".That's no myth, but CGI has come a long, long way since the T-1000 first shimmered across screens. You can bet this wasn't the average laptop picked up out the Argos book, so it would still be a powerful device.
Edwards is a seasoned FX professional too, and the assertion that it ain't what you've got so much as "how you use it" is wisely observed.
The effects aren't over-whelming. Like the camera work, it's subtle and is very much representative of what the human would see of such spectacles. Or what we think we see. There's a wonderful moment, as the two traverse water where something breaks the surface which plays with perception in a way M Night Shymalan would be proud. Generally we focus on the smaller things here, as we do with the lead characters. Even with regard to the various alien organisms which have sprang up in the infected areas. We're shown so much, but left to watch...for a while. Then to drawn our parallels and formulate theories. Details and dignities bigger, even much longer films,rarely seem to have the time for. A subtle, eerie electro-soundtrack, seems to harmonise with whale-song like cries of the fascinating "octopussy" land walking monsters who fleetingly appear throughout. There ARE "money shots", but they're relative to the rest of the piece, so to speak. I should also say how gorgeous the scenes where the travellers happen upon an Aztec Pyramid were: watch for those.
Like District 9 before it, MONSTERS represents a truck stop on the highway of SF story-telling on a journey home, in essence. Offering stories about real people, and reflecting either real world events or those most challenging relationships and pivotal moments which plot any lifetime. Sometimes both. This genre is surely being re-acquired and re-constituted, by the highly creative, and driven yet intuitive people who were it's originators. Away from the money men, or the mass, impresario like figures of James Cameron and George Lucas. Dare I say, back to the British too...?
It does employ some short hand of alien invasion flicks, right from the potent films of the 1950's. Though to tactical effect, all in service of serving the viewer "more" than they'd almost certainly expected from a film titled "MONSTERS". Also present though, IS a sense of wonder which must give Edwards away as one who's grown up with Spielberg's Close Encounters and Jurassic Park. Even E.T. as the aliens beings here maybe aren't the "monstrous" ones after all?
Another film MONSTERS brought to mind was Robert Zemeckis wonderful 80's caper Romancing the Stone. Though cleansed of the gloss, camp and knowing comedy strokes of such romantic adventure, MONSTERS isn't an attempt at counter-culture. It's guerrilla filming method aside, it's absolutely a mainstream movie. Though an assured and modern one.
There are those for whom this will be a
long-standing, firm favourite. Just as there will be plenty of people out there who have maybe grown up in the digital blockbuster age, post-Independence Day, who hadn't realised SF could work quite like this: that it was allowed to, even. Reaching such and bringing that awakening isn't easy, so that quality is something all should be proud of. Still,
there's a tendency to over soliloquise over movies like MONSTERS. Is this film part of a progressive movement for the SF genre...? Absolutely. Could this prove the same for movies generally? Probably... However, if the release calendar was awash with
films which share this aesthetic; it's nobility and mindset it wouldn't be anymore preferable to the production line of typical "2012" style productions.
Gareth Edwards himself will, I'm positive, make a better film than MONSTERS. Not necessarily a bigger one (though it is likely) but one which comes at story from a similar place, and has even greater reach than this has. Since first drafting this article, I've seen he's currently attached to Legendary Pictures much awaited new version of Godzilla. Ironically last filmed by Emmerich and Devlin, whose films I've referenced here, as the opposite of Edwards sensibilities. MONSTERS itself though, is tremendously satisfying. The biggest small film you can imagine: as beautifully performed as it is produced and I'd recommend it to anyone. That's not to say everyone WILL love it without reservation you understand..? Just that everyone should see it! - 4.5/5
MONSTERS is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
Alternatively, look for it screening on FILM4 in the UK and premiering on Channel 4, in coming months.
Matt Damon, who we're more used to seeing getting all anxious working out who the hell HE is, stars in this almost “Anti-Bourne” fantasy thriller, as David Norris. Norris looks like he's got it all mapped out for him, all-American and a 21st century John F Kennedy. Travelling his path to greatness has been somewhat rocky a road, and an old college days mooning-shot has affected opinion polls at a critical time! Damn-it, he's just too normal, fallible and honest for this politics lark!! So, quite naturally, we like him already.
Not so much the watchful presence of this "Adjustment" team. Staffed by trilby wearing jobs-worth's, who all look like they could be suspects in the Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy. They're calm enough, so there's no Agent Smith style leaping around, or kung-fu moves here. But on the odd occasion they talk to the rest of us it's as errant children, and they herd us, through our own lives, as cattle. John Slattery's Richardson leads this particular containment operation. He'll do everything in his power to prevent the captivating, mysterious Elise and our David from so much as meeting again, let alone begin a life together.
Elise has no idea of what's at play, so we follow David's efforts to thwart the over-whelming, other-worldly plan of his tormentors. Can he bring himself to let her go? To stop wondering what could be, and accept his path...? Or risk his own existence in defying destiny? It'll take a relentless pursuit through, and even underneath the city of New York, and a longer haul than he can realise.
I mentioned earlier on, the likeable, everyman nature of David Norris from the start. It's more than what's on the page, or a "type". I feel I should confess at this point that despite the fact I must've seen a dozen films starring Matt Damon (The Departed, Green Zone, True Grit for example) The Adjustment Bureau (TAB)released earlier this year, has been the very first where I've really liked, related or responded to his character. However great the film, and that includes the celebrated Bourne Trilogy, I'm afraid. Damon is fantastic as Norris. Seems he's having a ball playing the different sides to the character, and this whole story. Damon is part romantic lead, part bewildered boy scout and part action hero, in a believable and balanced performance. Conveying the conflict within himself, as his perception of what he wants and who he can be, stands at odds with what fate has literally written out for him.
I saw a measure of Hitchcock's flawed leading men, like Gregory Peck, here and Damon's scenes with Emily Blunts' Elise prove irresistible highpoints. Whether they worked hard for it, or not, these two performers have great chemistry and even when they're apart in the film....whichever one we're with, it feels the other one is there too. A magical, yet bloke-friendly and sugar-free exploration of the concept, and even the ethics of choice, destiny and truest love. Who doesn't, at some point, when things are going either tremendously well, or un-relentlessly bad, whether someone up there, or out there isn't manipulating the odds or setting a path for us..? TAB is smart enough to play with that, and offer a polished, thrilling adventure besides.
TABis actually based on one of the seemingly never ending library of short-stories by SF legend Philip K Dick ( “The Adjustment Team” - 1954) Dick's work has previously made it to screens, in varying degrees of adaptation, as the likes of Total Recall, Minority Report and Ridley Scott's seminal Blade Runner. Screenwriter and first time director George Nolfi has Ocean's Thirteen and The Bourne Ultimatum (which both also featured Damon) under his belt.
Upon release, I'd noted the movie's publicity machine bigged TAB up as belonging very much to the same breed as Christopher Nolan's Inception, and therefore other high concept stuff like The Matrix. With Damon's name also used to tempt with promises of Bourne-flavoured layering. Indeed a quote saying such, is on the DVD sleeve. This has bound to be a contributing factor in this movie not making a big impact, because in actual fact TAB isn't gritty or visceral. Neither does it bend or senses, re-structure it's own narrative, nor prime it's running time with a minefield of red-herrings or slight of hand. With little bad language (so when we do hear it, it's very palpable) and no nudey bits. Still, for all that Nofli's elegant and mannered film owes to the age of gum-shoe detective, film noir or those rainy Sunday afternoon fantasies A Matter Of Life and Death or Lost Horizon, there's enough a drizzling of 21stcentury cynicism and superbly choreographed spectacle to hold a modern audience.
Terrance Stamp and Anthony Mackie fill out the cast, as two other faces of the bureau itself. Both are most watchable, adding just enough to the equation to move the story along. For those who insist on answers...? Well, the nature of this parallel society and bureaucracy isn't dwelled upon, but what's offered makes amusing food for thought, that won't “frighten the horses”. That's okay: look what nailing colours to the mast did for "Knowing", eh? (I talked about that a few weeks ago) You COULD say TAB lacks balls because of it, but I'd conclude it preserves the stories metaphysical spirit and allows viewers to empathise and even embellish where THEY choose or need.
Though a sucker for gadgets, and stylistic production design, I also found it refreshing how analogue this film is. Technology doesn't feature in either the presentation, nor the resolution of TAB. The methods and operations of the bureau themselves, hidden behind oak panelled double doors and scribbled in bound journals. The original story was a product of the 1950's and post-war espionage, and TAB keeps that within grabbing distance enough to feel fresh in a genre flooded with the breakneck and cutting-edge, if nostalgic. Well polished shoes, beating on equally shined floors, almost making "Bullet-time" seem old news. Not least of all because it doesn't take attention away from the energy driving the plot, and propelling the characters.
That's not to say this is a film about relationships. The Adjustment Bureau is still predominantly concerned with its ideas, and a philosophy to have made it through from Dick's original, and that makes it totally a Fantasy story. One of a number of recent movies to capture the spirit of anthology prose or classic TV. Resisting mention of obvious comparisons, I will liken to stand-out Star Trek episode “The City on the Edge of Forever” instead. That which memorably featured Joan Collins opposite William Shatner's James Kirk. I finally understood, here during my viewing of TAB, why Matt Damon had been the first actor JJ Abhrams approached to succeed Shatner, in his new Trek film a couple of years ago.
What made The Adjustment Bureauspecial for me, and why I've no doubt it'll prove somewhat of a grower,is that intelligent balance it struck whilst efortlessly covering chosen bases. Not forgetting it's thrilling final gambit, electrified by an infectious cover of "Fever" beating out each turn. The Adjustment Bureau is inclusive enough to make a great date movie, as well as a SF/Fantasy genre treat. I just loved it!- 4.5/5
THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
