World War Z:
What's it about?
Big budget adaptation (in-name-only, pretty much) of Max Brooks' celebrated zombie novel.
Who would I recognise in it?
Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos, James Badge Dale, Matthew Fox, Fana Mokoena, David Morse, Peter Capaldi.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
I went into watching this flick (in its "extended" form) with my expectations at rock bottom after months of negative press and information and trailers in the lead-up to the initial release. Likewise with very mixed reviews coming from fellow zombie fans, I was preparing myself for an out-right calamity. Fortunately, it wasn't quite that bad - however, it was still a massively compromised hodge-podge of CGI, gargantuan plot holes, and leaps in logic that crumble what semblance of a narrative there is. Effectively a series of increasingly large-scale set pieces, the film rushes to establish a 'family dynamic' to give Brad Pitt's Gerry something to fight for. Sadly, the film never earns the right to our emotions as it swiftly goes about throwing as much money at the screen as possible. The scale is impressive, but the running, jumping, screeching, twitching, 'zombies' look awful - it's CGI overload and groan-inducing "I Am Legend" style nonsense all-the-way. The 'ant hill' and 'fluid group dynamics' are just naff gimmicks as the CGI 'zombies' defy physical logic and the abilities of the human body.
Click "READ MORE" below for more WWZ, horrors inside the home, Nazi monsters, knock-off Star Wars action, and spooky houses...
Showing posts with label pentuple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pentuple. Show all posts
Friday, 11 April 2014
Tuesday, 25 February 2014
Pentuple Bill Mini Musings: Mayhem and More...
Machete Kills:
What's it about?
Ex-Federale and all-round blade-wielding arse-kicker Machete is recruited by the President of the United States to take down a revolutionary gone mad, and a billionaire arms dealer (and everyone else in-between), before global war erupts.
Who would I recognise in it?
Danny Trejo, Charlie Sheen, Mel Gibson, Amber Heard, Vanessa Hudgens, Michelle Rodriguez, Sofia Vergara, Jessica Alba, Antonio Bandera, Cuba Gooding Jr, Lady Gaga, Walton Goggins, Tom Savini, and more.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
Director Robert Rodriguez has his fingers in multiple pies, but this time he's hands-off when it comes to the script (beyond a "story by" credit, anyway), and it really shows. The script lacks discipline and efficiency - exploitation movies don't need to make strict sense, but they do need to get where they're going fast, and Machete Kills seems rather intent on expanding beyond it's limits. The first 40 minutes feel slap-dash - multiple characters doing the job of one, excessive stunt-casting meaning numerous side characters are given little screen time, and the like - but after that, the movie does find a greater sense of focus again.
Click "READ MORE" below for more mini movie musings...
What's it about?
Ex-Federale and all-round blade-wielding arse-kicker Machete is recruited by the President of the United States to take down a revolutionary gone mad, and a billionaire arms dealer (and everyone else in-between), before global war erupts.
Who would I recognise in it?
Danny Trejo, Charlie Sheen, Mel Gibson, Amber Heard, Vanessa Hudgens, Michelle Rodriguez, Sofia Vergara, Jessica Alba, Antonio Bandera, Cuba Gooding Jr, Lady Gaga, Walton Goggins, Tom Savini, and more.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
Director Robert Rodriguez has his fingers in multiple pies, but this time he's hands-off when it comes to the script (beyond a "story by" credit, anyway), and it really shows. The script lacks discipline and efficiency - exploitation movies don't need to make strict sense, but they do need to get where they're going fast, and Machete Kills seems rather intent on expanding beyond it's limits. The first 40 minutes feel slap-dash - multiple characters doing the job of one, excessive stunt-casting meaning numerous side characters are given little screen time, and the like - but after that, the movie does find a greater sense of focus again.
Click "READ MORE" below for more mini movie musings...
Friday, 12 July 2013
Pentuple Bill Mini Musings: 40s, Fields, Valleys, Bars, and Jurors...
This Is 40:
What's it about?
The 'sort of sequel' to Knocked Up, centred on previous side-characters Pete and Debbie, and their friends and family.
Who would I recognise in it?
Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, John Lithgow, Albert Brooks, Megan Fox, Jason Segel, and more Apatow chums.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
Apatow drifted into overlong and self-indulgent territory with Funny People, which was very funny very frequently, but which was decidedly too long and lacked a sense of propulsion. Similarly, This Is 40 is missing any real sense of narrative drive - it's more like a series of sketches featuring the same characters each time - and while, again, there's an awful lot of funny moments throughout, you can't help but feel that at 134 minutes, Apatow's been allowed to indulge himself simply because he makes money. He may be very successful, and very funny, but that's no excuse to throw away narrative purpose and on-point storytelling.
The real miss-step with the film, however, is the lifestyle of Pete & Debbie's family. They apparently have financial worries - Debbie's store is only breaking even, while Pete's indie record label is sinking fast - but they live in a vast house, drive two flash cars, can indulge themselves with personal fitness trainers, nights out, and even a weekend at a fancy hotel retreat (literally right after bemoaning their money problems) - and then there's all the expensive stuff they own. It's bizarre for them to then tighten their belts by taking their kids' iPods, iPads, and iMacs (already paid for) off of them, and limiting the WiFi use (again, already paid for).
Click "READ MORE" below for more 40, and more flicks...
What's it about?
The 'sort of sequel' to Knocked Up, centred on previous side-characters Pete and Debbie, and their friends and family.
Who would I recognise in it?
Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, John Lithgow, Albert Brooks, Megan Fox, Jason Segel, and more Apatow chums.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
Apatow drifted into overlong and self-indulgent territory with Funny People, which was very funny very frequently, but which was decidedly too long and lacked a sense of propulsion. Similarly, This Is 40 is missing any real sense of narrative drive - it's more like a series of sketches featuring the same characters each time - and while, again, there's an awful lot of funny moments throughout, you can't help but feel that at 134 minutes, Apatow's been allowed to indulge himself simply because he makes money. He may be very successful, and very funny, but that's no excuse to throw away narrative purpose and on-point storytelling.
The real miss-step with the film, however, is the lifestyle of Pete & Debbie's family. They apparently have financial worries - Debbie's store is only breaking even, while Pete's indie record label is sinking fast - but they live in a vast house, drive two flash cars, can indulge themselves with personal fitness trainers, nights out, and even a weekend at a fancy hotel retreat (literally right after bemoaning their money problems) - and then there's all the expensive stuff they own. It's bizarre for them to then tighten their belts by taking their kids' iPods, iPads, and iMacs (already paid for) off of them, and limiting the WiFi use (again, already paid for).
Click "READ MORE" below for more 40, and more flicks...
Saturday, 29 December 2012
Pentuple Bill Mini Musings: Saucy Bears, 90s Raunch, Action and Stuff...
Ted:
What's it about?
A lonely boy makes a wish for his teddy bear to come to life. It works. Fast forward thirty years and they're still 'Thunder Buddies for Life' as they laze about and smoke pot all day, but the man who was once a boy with a magic teddy bear needs to grow up, lest his girlfriend leaves him.
Who would I recognise in it?
Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth MacFarlane, Giovani Ribisi, Ralph Garman, Joel McHale, Patrick Stewart, Norah Jones, Tom Skerritt.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
Would you like a movie where a foul-mouthed teddy bear simulates sexual acts, beats people up, and snorts cocaine? If the answer is yes, then you'll have a bloody good time. The second half might get a bit flabby at points (after a very solid first hour), but it's a testament to the filmmakers that they could make this rather badly behaved bear be so acceptable to the audience. Plenty of raunchy humour abound - I had a lot of fun with this flick. Great.
Click "READ MORE" below for action, erotica, Oscar-worthy performances, and Herge...
What's it about?
A lonely boy makes a wish for his teddy bear to come to life. It works. Fast forward thirty years and they're still 'Thunder Buddies for Life' as they laze about and smoke pot all day, but the man who was once a boy with a magic teddy bear needs to grow up, lest his girlfriend leaves him.
Who would I recognise in it?
Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth MacFarlane, Giovani Ribisi, Ralph Garman, Joel McHale, Patrick Stewart, Norah Jones, Tom Skerritt.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
Would you like a movie where a foul-mouthed teddy bear simulates sexual acts, beats people up, and snorts cocaine? If the answer is yes, then you'll have a bloody good time. The second half might get a bit flabby at points (after a very solid first hour), but it's a testament to the filmmakers that they could make this rather badly behaved bear be so acceptable to the audience. Plenty of raunchy humour abound - I had a lot of fun with this flick. Great.
Click "READ MORE" below for action, erotica, Oscar-worthy performances, and Herge...
Monday, 27 August 2012
Pentuple Bill Mini Musings: Aliens, Murder, and Business...
Apollo 18:
What's it about?
A 'found footage film' about a classified mission to the moon after the last official landing of Apollo 17 (hence the title), in which American astronauts are sent to apparently erect some sort of Russian missile detection system. However, amidst the craters on the surface, they discover the Russians have at some point landed on the moon and suffered a terrible fate. Better be careful which moon rocks you pick up then...
Who would I recognise in it?
No 'big names' here, but it was produced by Dimension Films and Timur Bekmambetov, and edited by Patrick "Drive Angry" Lussier.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
There's creepy crawly moon monsters out there in the cold silence of space, and while it's not an exceptional shocker, Apollo 18 does prove to be a pleasant surprise nonetheless. The claustrophobia of a lunar module or a space suit unsettles you from the back of your mind, while the isolation of the moon's surface creates genuine chills. There is a tendency towards LOUD NOISE jumps from time-to-time, but when you descend into a pitch black crater with nothing but a camera's flash for guidance, you know that sooner or later there's going to be an explosion of popcorn before your eyes. Stylistically the film is a real success, with contrast, colour, grain, and even aspect ratio and framing, all seamlessly matching the real-life NASA footage. What's less convincing is the inconsistent low gravity experienced by the two (out of three) astronauts who land on the moon - sure, this would have been a fairly low budget production, but to see them walk across the surface, rather than bounce like Neil Armstrong (may he rest in peace) and his moon walking brothers so memorably did, does strip away some of the believability, which is otherwise pretty strong. Atmospheric, chilling, and proving to be a rather enjoyable mixture of found footage frights with period-set Apollo moon missions, it's surprisingly good.
Click "READ MORE" below for corruption, assassinations, pool men, and Bowfinger...
What's it about?
A 'found footage film' about a classified mission to the moon after the last official landing of Apollo 17 (hence the title), in which American astronauts are sent to apparently erect some sort of Russian missile detection system. However, amidst the craters on the surface, they discover the Russians have at some point landed on the moon and suffered a terrible fate. Better be careful which moon rocks you pick up then...
Who would I recognise in it?
No 'big names' here, but it was produced by Dimension Films and Timur Bekmambetov, and edited by Patrick "Drive Angry" Lussier.
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
There's creepy crawly moon monsters out there in the cold silence of space, and while it's not an exceptional shocker, Apollo 18 does prove to be a pleasant surprise nonetheless. The claustrophobia of a lunar module or a space suit unsettles you from the back of your mind, while the isolation of the moon's surface creates genuine chills. There is a tendency towards LOUD NOISE jumps from time-to-time, but when you descend into a pitch black crater with nothing but a camera's flash for guidance, you know that sooner or later there's going to be an explosion of popcorn before your eyes. Stylistically the film is a real success, with contrast, colour, grain, and even aspect ratio and framing, all seamlessly matching the real-life NASA footage. What's less convincing is the inconsistent low gravity experienced by the two (out of three) astronauts who land on the moon - sure, this would have been a fairly low budget production, but to see them walk across the surface, rather than bounce like Neil Armstrong (may he rest in peace) and his moon walking brothers so memorably did, does strip away some of the believability, which is otherwise pretty strong. Atmospheric, chilling, and proving to be a rather enjoyable mixture of found footage frights with period-set Apollo moon missions, it's surprisingly good.
Click "READ MORE" below for corruption, assassinations, pool men, and Bowfinger...
Sunday, 27 May 2012
Pentuple Bill Mini Musings: Guns, Killer Laundry, Grind, Nightmares, and Badlands...
Nude Nuns With Big Guns:
What's it about?
If you can't figure it out from the title, then you've little hope for the future.
Who would I recognise in it?
Nobody, unless you've seen Run! Bitch Run!
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
If flattery is the highest form of compliment, then Robert Rodriguez must be blushing, because Guzman & Co have unrepentently ripped-off his ouvre - particularly Grindhouse (even the music from the opening sequence is highly influenced/half-inched from RR's ode to the sleaze flicks of 42nd Street). The presentation is much improved over Guzman's previous flick, the aforementioned Run! Bitch Run! (which was highly indebted to The Last House on the Left, and I Spit On Your Grave), although it too is utterly indebted to the work of others - but even still, for a low budget faux-grindhouse flick such as this mean-spirited outing, it's put together well enough to not distract from the onslaught of bared flesh and brandished firearms. The script is a bit thin (unsurprisingly, as you might imagine), yet heftier than RBR's, and the pacing is sometimes a bit slow, but it certainly passes the Ronseal test - it does exactly what it says on the tin ... it's just a shame that Joseph Guzman, Robert James Hayes II, and company, are seemingly such unashamed rip-off merchants in the process. Alright.
Click "READ MORE" below for killer laundry machines, movie documentaries, and two crazy kids on the run from the law.
What's it about?
If you can't figure it out from the title, then you've little hope for the future.
Who would I recognise in it?
Nobody, unless you've seen Run! Bitch Run!
Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
If flattery is the highest form of compliment, then Robert Rodriguez must be blushing, because Guzman & Co have unrepentently ripped-off his ouvre - particularly Grindhouse (even the music from the opening sequence is highly influenced/half-inched from RR's ode to the sleaze flicks of 42nd Street). The presentation is much improved over Guzman's previous flick, the aforementioned Run! Bitch Run! (which was highly indebted to The Last House on the Left, and I Spit On Your Grave), although it too is utterly indebted to the work of others - but even still, for a low budget faux-grindhouse flick such as this mean-spirited outing, it's put together well enough to not distract from the onslaught of bared flesh and brandished firearms. The script is a bit thin (unsurprisingly, as you might imagine), yet heftier than RBR's, and the pacing is sometimes a bit slow, but it certainly passes the Ronseal test - it does exactly what it says on the tin ... it's just a shame that Joseph Guzman, Robert James Hayes II, and company, are seemingly such unashamed rip-off merchants in the process. Alright.
Click "READ MORE" below for killer laundry machines, movie documentaries, and two crazy kids on the run from the law.
Thursday, 24 November 2011
Pentuple Bill Mini Musings: November 2011...
The Exterminator:
This 1980s exploitation action flick got somewhat caught up in the 'video nasties' era here in the UK, but save for a few violent moments (such as a tremendous decapitation in the action-packed, explosions-galore opening five minutes) there's not an awful lot here to get your knickers in a twist about.
A Vietnam veteran takes to the meanstreets of New York City to sweep away the scum - the gang members, the pimps, the abusers, and so forth - in revenge for the terrible fate that befalls his good friend. After an impressively realised and explosive Nam-set opener, the movie quickly falters - the pace is all over the shop, the plot has an inconsistent focus, and the side characters are loosely considered. There are numerous great ideas littered throughout this revenge flick, including a vaguely explored governmental conspiracy, that could have (and should have) added up to a much tighter and more entertaining action picture - but alas it's not to be, especially with an underwhelming denouement that fails to provide a knock-out punch (let alone utilise the impressive arsenal that two main characters are seen packing).
Great ideas and great moments are lost in a disappointing murk. If you're into this kind of movie it's worth a watch, but unless it specifically hooks you, it'll mostly fade into the ether of your memory.
Mr Blandings Builds His Dream House:
As a kid I was a big fan of the Tom Hanks comedy The Money Pit (and I still am to this day) - and it was this Cary Grant-starring comedy that provided the foundations for it. Grant plays an Ad Executive in 1948 New York who dreams of a family home in rural Conneticut and, like an episode of Grand Designs, his dream project soon takes on a life of its own. The budget spirals, problems galore arise during the build, and it all becomes a bit of a stress. Naturally I prefer The Money Pit - as it's been a part of film-viewing life for as long as I can remember - but it was good to see this. The pace might be a bit sedate, and the comedy a touch on the soft-delivery side of things, but it was good fun nonetheless.
Island of Death:
One of the lesser known (yet still notorious) 'Video Nasties', Island of Death is a Biblically immoral tale of an incestuous couple spreading their wrath throughout the Greek island of Mykonos. Goats, amorous Frenchmen, homosexuals, randy old spinsters, the most pointless policeman on the planet, and anyone else going feel the wrath of this pair of misfits whose motives are - at best - foggy. The love-it-or-hate-it soundtrack works jarringly against-the-grain of the on-screen sadism, and it lacks any real sense of propulsion or purpose, but if you're fascinated by the era of the video nasty, then it's worth a look ... mind you, I'm quite glad I saw it on the Horror Channel instead of spending any money on it. To me at least, it's a one-watch-pony.
The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou:
As I've said before, over the last year I've suddenly gotten into Wes Anderson's brand of quirky ensemble comedies. Fantastic Mr. Fox, Rushmore, The Royal Tennenbaums, The Darjeeling Limited, and now this - a similarly inimitable telling of Bill Murry's titular sea explorer who discovers he has an adult son just as he's about to set off on a voyage to track down the apparent Jaguar Shark that ate his best friend and collegue. It's exactly what I'd expect from a Wes Anderson film, although out of the aforementioned movies of his that I have seen, this would be at the bottom of the list for me personally - but that said, the bottom of this list is still quite high up in general.
Identity:
A cast full of names - including John Cusack (so as I continue to maintain, it's already worth watching simply for that fact) - populate this very effective, and incredibly fast paced mystery thriller. A series of people find themselves all trapped at a Motel in the midst of a torrential storm, and they're getting picked off one-by-one by an unseen killer. The reveal becomes apparent before its time and should have been hidden better for longer, but regardless, it's a stylish, efficient and very worthwhile thriller delivered by a talented cast and crew. It's one of those flicks I meant to see when it first came out in 2003, but for whatever reason I never got around to it - well I'm glad I finally did, because it's damn well worth a watch.
This 1980s exploitation action flick got somewhat caught up in the 'video nasties' era here in the UK, but save for a few violent moments (such as a tremendous decapitation in the action-packed, explosions-galore opening five minutes) there's not an awful lot here to get your knickers in a twist about.
A Vietnam veteran takes to the meanstreets of New York City to sweep away the scum - the gang members, the pimps, the abusers, and so forth - in revenge for the terrible fate that befalls his good friend. After an impressively realised and explosive Nam-set opener, the movie quickly falters - the pace is all over the shop, the plot has an inconsistent focus, and the side characters are loosely considered. There are numerous great ideas littered throughout this revenge flick, including a vaguely explored governmental conspiracy, that could have (and should have) added up to a much tighter and more entertaining action picture - but alas it's not to be, especially with an underwhelming denouement that fails to provide a knock-out punch (let alone utilise the impressive arsenal that two main characters are seen packing).
Great ideas and great moments are lost in a disappointing murk. If you're into this kind of movie it's worth a watch, but unless it specifically hooks you, it'll mostly fade into the ether of your memory.
Mr Blandings Builds His Dream House:
As a kid I was a big fan of the Tom Hanks comedy The Money Pit (and I still am to this day) - and it was this Cary Grant-starring comedy that provided the foundations for it. Grant plays an Ad Executive in 1948 New York who dreams of a family home in rural Conneticut and, like an episode of Grand Designs, his dream project soon takes on a life of its own. The budget spirals, problems galore arise during the build, and it all becomes a bit of a stress. Naturally I prefer The Money Pit - as it's been a part of film-viewing life for as long as I can remember - but it was good to see this. The pace might be a bit sedate, and the comedy a touch on the soft-delivery side of things, but it was good fun nonetheless.
Island of Death:
One of the lesser known (yet still notorious) 'Video Nasties', Island of Death is a Biblically immoral tale of an incestuous couple spreading their wrath throughout the Greek island of Mykonos. Goats, amorous Frenchmen, homosexuals, randy old spinsters, the most pointless policeman on the planet, and anyone else going feel the wrath of this pair of misfits whose motives are - at best - foggy. The love-it-or-hate-it soundtrack works jarringly against-the-grain of the on-screen sadism, and it lacks any real sense of propulsion or purpose, but if you're fascinated by the era of the video nasty, then it's worth a look ... mind you, I'm quite glad I saw it on the Horror Channel instead of spending any money on it. To me at least, it's a one-watch-pony.
The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou:
As I've said before, over the last year I've suddenly gotten into Wes Anderson's brand of quirky ensemble comedies. Fantastic Mr. Fox, Rushmore, The Royal Tennenbaums, The Darjeeling Limited, and now this - a similarly inimitable telling of Bill Murry's titular sea explorer who discovers he has an adult son just as he's about to set off on a voyage to track down the apparent Jaguar Shark that ate his best friend and collegue. It's exactly what I'd expect from a Wes Anderson film, although out of the aforementioned movies of his that I have seen, this would be at the bottom of the list for me personally - but that said, the bottom of this list is still quite high up in general.
Identity:
A cast full of names - including John Cusack (so as I continue to maintain, it's already worth watching simply for that fact) - populate this very effective, and incredibly fast paced mystery thriller. A series of people find themselves all trapped at a Motel in the midst of a torrential storm, and they're getting picked off one-by-one by an unseen killer. The reveal becomes apparent before its time and should have been hidden better for longer, but regardless, it's a stylish, efficient and very worthwhile thriller delivered by a talented cast and crew. It's one of those flicks I meant to see when it first came out in 2003, but for whatever reason I never got around to it - well I'm glad I finally did, because it's damn well worth a watch.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Pentuple Bill Mini Musings: Chicks, Demons, Idiots, Bugs and Clint...
Thelma & Louise:
The final image - with which I'm sure you'll be very familiar with already - is one of those lasting cinematic moments that you'll probably see before you watch the movie. I've seen that moment countless times, and numerous parodies of it (such as on Robot Chicken), but I've only just gotten to the actual movie - and it's good. No wonder it has stood the test of time, it's ideal film school text, it's an essay in-itself about oft-termed girl power, and feminist empowerment, plus it's just a solid story. The eponymous ladies head off for a weekend away fishing, but a fateful stop at a bar leads to them going on-the-run from the law in a world run by men who are almost always idiots or bastards ... or charming bastards. It's quality popcorn sexual politics.
[REC] 2:
The original quickly got a name for itself - the first-person tale of a camera crew attending a routine emergency call with firemen, only to be dunked head first into a horrific battle against blood thirsty monsters in an apartment building. It was well crafted and frequently nerve shredding. The sequel on the other hand picks up immediately after the events of the first movie - from the perspective of a SWAT team charged with escorting a mysterious man inside so that he can carry out a, seemingly simple, task of getting a blood sample.
While the characterisation is a bit brief, and a bit blunt and simplistic (yet another panicky, shouty guy - Larra), yet the broad strokes approach gets you into the action swiftly (the entire reason to watch the movie). There's less tension this time around (but it's by no means missing), and a middle portion featuring the most annoying movie teenagers I've seen in years is nothing but pointless, aggravating filler ... but beyond that there's a nice twist to the monsters themselves, and a thrilling/creepy race to the finish line. If only they'd hacked out those beyond-stupid, totally-annoying, utterly-pointless, desperately-in-need-of-multiple-slaps, can't-wait-to-get-shot-of-them teenagers from the script in the first place!
Jackass 3.5:
It's off-cuts from Jackass 3D polished up to essentially double-dip on the fan base, but then again with that amount of extra content, you can't blame them for putting together a 'best of the rest' disc (which also features yet more out-takes and additional scenes). Fortunately it's decidedly better than the brief and mostly passable Jackass 2.5 (less talking, less rubbish, more entertainment), and it features some inventive nut-shots ... and who doesn't chuckle at a creative nut shot?!
Phenomena:
The last time there was a Dario Argento season on The Horror Channel, I missed this particular slice of bug-baiting curiousness (featuring a rather young Jennifer Connelly). The movie can't decide what sort of flick it wants to be, with a plot that lurches from one territory to the next, without fully realising any of them. A young girl (the daughter of an actor) is shipped off to a private girl's school in Switzerland, where she befriends an entomologist (Donald Pleasance, with a Scotch brogue on his tongue) who is cared for by a chimp ... oh, and she has a curious telepathic link with insects ... and there's a random murderer running around offing girls. It's not as visually exuberant as the likes of Suspiria, or as crisp as The Bird With The Crystal Plumage, but it's decidedly better than the dull The Stendhal Syndrome (nice idea, poor execution). However, the sloppy plotting, lack of exploration of some ideas that are set-up well (only to be practically abandoned), and a third act reveal that makes little (if any) sense makes it a bit of a damp squib. Okay - not crap - but not particularly good either.
Tightrope:
Clint Eastwood is a New Orleans cop, and single father-of-two, who's tracking a vicious sex killer through the seedy streets of sin across the city. The psychological motivation is explored as much as a cop thriller from the 1980s with a big-name-star ever could - but by today's standards, it's a relative skimming of the surface. Not one of Eastwood's best, but certainly not his worst.
The final image - with which I'm sure you'll be very familiar with already - is one of those lasting cinematic moments that you'll probably see before you watch the movie. I've seen that moment countless times, and numerous parodies of it (such as on Robot Chicken), but I've only just gotten to the actual movie - and it's good. No wonder it has stood the test of time, it's ideal film school text, it's an essay in-itself about oft-termed girl power, and feminist empowerment, plus it's just a solid story. The eponymous ladies head off for a weekend away fishing, but a fateful stop at a bar leads to them going on-the-run from the law in a world run by men who are almost always idiots or bastards ... or charming bastards. It's quality popcorn sexual politics.
[REC] 2:
The original quickly got a name for itself - the first-person tale of a camera crew attending a routine emergency call with firemen, only to be dunked head first into a horrific battle against blood thirsty monsters in an apartment building. It was well crafted and frequently nerve shredding. The sequel on the other hand picks up immediately after the events of the first movie - from the perspective of a SWAT team charged with escorting a mysterious man inside so that he can carry out a, seemingly simple, task of getting a blood sample.
While the characterisation is a bit brief, and a bit blunt and simplistic (yet another panicky, shouty guy - Larra), yet the broad strokes approach gets you into the action swiftly (the entire reason to watch the movie). There's less tension this time around (but it's by no means missing), and a middle portion featuring the most annoying movie teenagers I've seen in years is nothing but pointless, aggravating filler ... but beyond that there's a nice twist to the monsters themselves, and a thrilling/creepy race to the finish line. If only they'd hacked out those beyond-stupid, totally-annoying, utterly-pointless, desperately-in-need-of-multiple-slaps, can't-wait-to-get-shot-of-them teenagers from the script in the first place!
Jackass 3.5:
It's off-cuts from Jackass 3D polished up to essentially double-dip on the fan base, but then again with that amount of extra content, you can't blame them for putting together a 'best of the rest' disc (which also features yet more out-takes and additional scenes). Fortunately it's decidedly better than the brief and mostly passable Jackass 2.5 (less talking, less rubbish, more entertainment), and it features some inventive nut-shots ... and who doesn't chuckle at a creative nut shot?!
Phenomena:
The last time there was a Dario Argento season on The Horror Channel, I missed this particular slice of bug-baiting curiousness (featuring a rather young Jennifer Connelly). The movie can't decide what sort of flick it wants to be, with a plot that lurches from one territory to the next, without fully realising any of them. A young girl (the daughter of an actor) is shipped off to a private girl's school in Switzerland, where she befriends an entomologist (Donald Pleasance, with a Scotch brogue on his tongue) who is cared for by a chimp ... oh, and she has a curious telepathic link with insects ... and there's a random murderer running around offing girls. It's not as visually exuberant as the likes of Suspiria, or as crisp as The Bird With The Crystal Plumage, but it's decidedly better than the dull The Stendhal Syndrome (nice idea, poor execution). However, the sloppy plotting, lack of exploration of some ideas that are set-up well (only to be practically abandoned), and a third act reveal that makes little (if any) sense makes it a bit of a damp squib. Okay - not crap - but not particularly good either.
Tightrope:
Clint Eastwood is a New Orleans cop, and single father-of-two, who's tracking a vicious sex killer through the seedy streets of sin across the city. The psychological motivation is explored as much as a cop thriller from the 1980s with a big-name-star ever could - but by today's standards, it's a relative skimming of the surface. Not one of Eastwood's best, but certainly not his worst.
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Pentuple Bill Mini (and Cine) Musings: Antics, Heroes, Trains, Nutters and Robots...
The Hangover: Part II:
The trailer for the first movie was pretty crap, and I wasn't particularly looking forward to seeing it. However, the movie itself was damn good fun, and seeing as it made a shedload of cash a sequel was inevitable. Moving from the 'safe seediness' of Vegas to the 'serious seediness' of Bangkok, the tone is decidedly darker. Vegas is a bit of fun, but if you're lost in Thailand's capital too long it's a case of "Bangkok has you now", never to return. It's grubbier, sweatier and crazier - everything is dialed up to 11 and beyond. The gross stuff gets grosser, the panic gets more palpable, and the sleaze keeps on slithering around you.
Despite the darker tone once the movie gets going, there's plenty of fun to be had - although the movie sticks so closely to the formula, and indeed structure, of the original movie, that it can feel a bit too familiar. No doubt a third will be coming after this sequel blitzed the box office, and hopefully they'll explore new territory (e.g. at least showing us part of the chaotic evening, before segwaying into the chaotic morning after, and bring Justin Bartha's character along for the ride rather than leaving him curiously absent for the most part like in this sequel). So it's very familiar, it's more dangerous, not as good as the original (naturally), but if you dug the original you'll dig this ... and likewise, as has clearly been the case from some critics, if you hated the original, you'll hate this sequel with gusto. Meanwhile the rest of us will be enjoying ourselves.
Defendor:
I was quite looking forward to seeing this after Harrelson's turn in Zombieland, but in the end it's only an okay movie. Harrelson plays a simple man with some problems who masquerades by night as the eponymous hero seeking to bring down Captain Industry, whom he believes killed his mother when he was a child. The pace is a bit too slow, and it never really comes close to hitting a homerun. It's neither funny enough, nor dark enough, considering the subject matter ... although, it's still an interesting little flick, but not quite what I was expecting either unfortunately.
Unstoppable:
A movie about a runaway train full of explosive chemicals directed by Tony Scott - not much to it then, right? Well, sure it's straight forward stuff, but the pace is perfect and most importantly the drama and action is handled with total skill, making this runaway train movie genuinely gripping at all the right moments.
Hatchet:
I'd heard so many good things about this 1980s throwback horror from Adam Green, but clearly those who dug it were seeing something I wasn't. Whipping out a couple of horror icons and relying on cliches as much as you deride them isn't enough to make a decent horror flick. The moments of gore are enjoyable genre fare, but that's only a fraction of the movie. While the main character's buddy Marcus is enjoyably witty throughout, there's little else to keep your attention (even with the brief running time). Bar a handful of decent moments, it was dull and predictable. It neither truly paid homage to the 1980s, or unleashed the self-aware schtick, and the use of Marilyn Manson on the soundtrack is trendy, but totally out-of-place. I really don't get why some apparently enjoyed this so much, but I have heard that the sequel was met with a derisory "meh" during it's brief theatrical stint.
Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence:
It's been a few years since I watched the first one, so this belated sequel was a little hard to get into when coming to it cold, however the impressive visual style afforded to a very Blade Runner-inspired world where the line between human, cyborg and robot is blurred beyond recognition involves you nonetheless. The cyberpunk stylings are taken to lush and impressive lengths, utilising a mixture of CGI and traditional animation, and while the plot becomes a touch convoluted later on, the noir-like murder investigation that provides the backbone to the plot keeps things together nicely. An efficient 90 minute running time also keeps the flick from descending into ponciness (unlike the latter two Matrix movies, a franchise that was inspired in-part by the original Ghost in the Shell). As an aside, I watched it with the English Dub, which tried to cram too much exposition-filled dialogue into spaces that were too short, and what's more the delivery was robotic and too fast. Quality cyberpunk sci-fi anime.
The trailer for the first movie was pretty crap, and I wasn't particularly looking forward to seeing it. However, the movie itself was damn good fun, and seeing as it made a shedload of cash a sequel was inevitable. Moving from the 'safe seediness' of Vegas to the 'serious seediness' of Bangkok, the tone is decidedly darker. Vegas is a bit of fun, but if you're lost in Thailand's capital too long it's a case of "Bangkok has you now", never to return. It's grubbier, sweatier and crazier - everything is dialed up to 11 and beyond. The gross stuff gets grosser, the panic gets more palpable, and the sleaze keeps on slithering around you.
Despite the darker tone once the movie gets going, there's plenty of fun to be had - although the movie sticks so closely to the formula, and indeed structure, of the original movie, that it can feel a bit too familiar. No doubt a third will be coming after this sequel blitzed the box office, and hopefully they'll explore new territory (e.g. at least showing us part of the chaotic evening, before segwaying into the chaotic morning after, and bring Justin Bartha's character along for the ride rather than leaving him curiously absent for the most part like in this sequel). So it's very familiar, it's more dangerous, not as good as the original (naturally), but if you dug the original you'll dig this ... and likewise, as has clearly been the case from some critics, if you hated the original, you'll hate this sequel with gusto. Meanwhile the rest of us will be enjoying ourselves.
Defendor:
I was quite looking forward to seeing this after Harrelson's turn in Zombieland, but in the end it's only an okay movie. Harrelson plays a simple man with some problems who masquerades by night as the eponymous hero seeking to bring down Captain Industry, whom he believes killed his mother when he was a child. The pace is a bit too slow, and it never really comes close to hitting a homerun. It's neither funny enough, nor dark enough, considering the subject matter ... although, it's still an interesting little flick, but not quite what I was expecting either unfortunately.
Unstoppable:
A movie about a runaway train full of explosive chemicals directed by Tony Scott - not much to it then, right? Well, sure it's straight forward stuff, but the pace is perfect and most importantly the drama and action is handled with total skill, making this runaway train movie genuinely gripping at all the right moments.
Hatchet:
I'd heard so many good things about this 1980s throwback horror from Adam Green, but clearly those who dug it were seeing something I wasn't. Whipping out a couple of horror icons and relying on cliches as much as you deride them isn't enough to make a decent horror flick. The moments of gore are enjoyable genre fare, but that's only a fraction of the movie. While the main character's buddy Marcus is enjoyably witty throughout, there's little else to keep your attention (even with the brief running time). Bar a handful of decent moments, it was dull and predictable. It neither truly paid homage to the 1980s, or unleashed the self-aware schtick, and the use of Marilyn Manson on the soundtrack is trendy, but totally out-of-place. I really don't get why some apparently enjoyed this so much, but I have heard that the sequel was met with a derisory "meh" during it's brief theatrical stint.
Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence:
It's been a few years since I watched the first one, so this belated sequel was a little hard to get into when coming to it cold, however the impressive visual style afforded to a very Blade Runner-inspired world where the line between human, cyborg and robot is blurred beyond recognition involves you nonetheless. The cyberpunk stylings are taken to lush and impressive lengths, utilising a mixture of CGI and traditional animation, and while the plot becomes a touch convoluted later on, the noir-like murder investigation that provides the backbone to the plot keeps things together nicely. An efficient 90 minute running time also keeps the flick from descending into ponciness (unlike the latter two Matrix movies, a franchise that was inspired in-part by the original Ghost in the Shell). As an aside, I watched it with the English Dub, which tried to cram too much exposition-filled dialogue into spaces that were too short, and what's more the delivery was robotic and too fast. Quality cyberpunk sci-fi anime.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Pentuple Bill Mini (and Cine) Musings: Thor, Billy, Romans, Gangsters, and Randy Teens...
Thor 3D:
First off the bat - the 3D is pointless. Each time I see a movie in 3D now, I become even less bothered about the whole thing, and I wasn't particularly fussed beforehand. The last time 3D was any real fun was Jackass 3D, and that revolved around poking stuff into the lens. Even Drive Angry 3D wasn't all that in 3D. Indeed, despite knowing of it, and somewhat noticing it on other 3D flicks, the 'dimming factor' of 3D glasses was very evident with Thor. Particularly during night scenes and anytime we're in Thor's home realm, the image was ridiculously dulled.
The movie itself is basically thus - it's no Iron Man, that's for sure, but it's much better paced than Iron Man 2, however I'm much more looking forward to Captain America. There's a decent amount of humour splashed throughout, Natalie Portman is likeable as ever, Hemsworth does a solid job playing the hammer-flinger himself, and it's a generally impressive movie visually. However, I wasn't especially looking forward to this movie - hardly in fact - and while I did enjoy it, it wasn't particularly memorable for me. Good, but not great. One final thing though - it's possibly the loudest (and bassiest) movie of the year.
Billy Madison:
I've never understood why some people like these particular Adam Sandler movies so much. The scripting is rarely polished, never mind vaguely tight or organised, and Sandler seems to do the same schtick from one to the other. He was really good in Funny People, but I just don't get why some people dig these Adam Sandler comedies from the 1990s so much. Like with Happy Gilmore, which I saw for the first time a little while ago, there was only a few chuckles to be had. It's just a random load of old nonsense cobbled together.
Centurion:
I loved Dog Soldiers, The Descent was terrifyingly claustrophobic, and Doomsday was a gleeful mash-up of 1980s genre cinema. I dig them all and own them all on DVD. However, Centurion never struck me with much interest and so, long after its cinematic release, I come to it on Sky Movies. It's okay - a Roman army find themselves at the mercy of the Scottish Picts in 117AD Britain, and one-by-one the survivors of a bloody encounter are picked off as they make their way home to the nearest Roman outpost. The main battles are bloody, but there are few characters to really root for, as pretty much everyone is a bloodthirsty bastard or part of a vicious empire. The scenery is fantastic, but it doesn't elevate the movie to any lasting status for me.
Once Upon A Time In America:
When I originally saw Once Upon A Time In The West, I didn't like it. However, that was several years ago, and a recent second viewing changed my opinion entirely. This time around, it's another Sergio Leone epic - this time about the rise and fall of a group of gangsters in New York, following them through the streets of early 20th century life, Prohibition, and the dying days of the 1960s. It's epic, to say the least, although I preferred the first half of the movie to the second. Perhaps a second viewing would improve my response to the movie - which was a bit cold and distanced - like what happened with Once Upon A Time In The West. Or then again, maybe it wouldn't. Perhaps I prefer Leone's westerns. America was certainly grand and sumptuous, but I wonder why the first half interested me much more than the second half.
National Lampoon's Barely Legal:
Two years before the superior (obviously) The Girl Next Door (which was essentially Risky Business for the 2000s), came this - an unfocused, only slightly amusing, American Pie wannabe about three randy virgins who decide to make a porno. There's some cheekiness throughout, but few chuckles, and the script in particular is a let down. I know for a fact I could have written something better (and I say this not from a position of arrogance) - indeed I have written better things than this - so it's grating to see such a half-assed job get made when I spend so much time focusing on character, motivation, and banter-style humour. Then again, if you've got the connections, and someone is willing to stump up cash for the project - in this case an American Pie-a-like - then you're set. So it's doubly grating as someone struggling to get into the business.
I look at a script like this and think "I could have done so much more with this idea, I could have really gone for the meat and served up some actual yucks" - I can do gross-out comedy, I can do comedy/drama, and right now I'm in the midst of doing a drama/mystery. If only I could get a paid gig, even on something like a cash-in comedy such as this, I would bloody well make it worthwhile seeing ... or at the very least give it some bloody good chuckles, like Miss March, another American Pie-a-like which wasn't great, but it sure had some bloody good laughs and a bit of style.
This, on the other hand, was cheap and mostly dull, and never delivered on the comedic promise of the central premise. National Lampoon has fallen a long way since the likes of Animal House, Christmas Vacation, and even Loaded Weapon.
First off the bat - the 3D is pointless. Each time I see a movie in 3D now, I become even less bothered about the whole thing, and I wasn't particularly fussed beforehand. The last time 3D was any real fun was Jackass 3D, and that revolved around poking stuff into the lens. Even Drive Angry 3D wasn't all that in 3D. Indeed, despite knowing of it, and somewhat noticing it on other 3D flicks, the 'dimming factor' of 3D glasses was very evident with Thor. Particularly during night scenes and anytime we're in Thor's home realm, the image was ridiculously dulled.
The movie itself is basically thus - it's no Iron Man, that's for sure, but it's much better paced than Iron Man 2, however I'm much more looking forward to Captain America. There's a decent amount of humour splashed throughout, Natalie Portman is likeable as ever, Hemsworth does a solid job playing the hammer-flinger himself, and it's a generally impressive movie visually. However, I wasn't especially looking forward to this movie - hardly in fact - and while I did enjoy it, it wasn't particularly memorable for me. Good, but not great. One final thing though - it's possibly the loudest (and bassiest) movie of the year.
Billy Madison:
I've never understood why some people like these particular Adam Sandler movies so much. The scripting is rarely polished, never mind vaguely tight or organised, and Sandler seems to do the same schtick from one to the other. He was really good in Funny People, but I just don't get why some people dig these Adam Sandler comedies from the 1990s so much. Like with Happy Gilmore, which I saw for the first time a little while ago, there was only a few chuckles to be had. It's just a random load of old nonsense cobbled together.
Centurion:
I loved Dog Soldiers, The Descent was terrifyingly claustrophobic, and Doomsday was a gleeful mash-up of 1980s genre cinema. I dig them all and own them all on DVD. However, Centurion never struck me with much interest and so, long after its cinematic release, I come to it on Sky Movies. It's okay - a Roman army find themselves at the mercy of the Scottish Picts in 117AD Britain, and one-by-one the survivors of a bloody encounter are picked off as they make their way home to the nearest Roman outpost. The main battles are bloody, but there are few characters to really root for, as pretty much everyone is a bloodthirsty bastard or part of a vicious empire. The scenery is fantastic, but it doesn't elevate the movie to any lasting status for me.
Once Upon A Time In America:
When I originally saw Once Upon A Time In The West, I didn't like it. However, that was several years ago, and a recent second viewing changed my opinion entirely. This time around, it's another Sergio Leone epic - this time about the rise and fall of a group of gangsters in New York, following them through the streets of early 20th century life, Prohibition, and the dying days of the 1960s. It's epic, to say the least, although I preferred the first half of the movie to the second. Perhaps a second viewing would improve my response to the movie - which was a bit cold and distanced - like what happened with Once Upon A Time In The West. Or then again, maybe it wouldn't. Perhaps I prefer Leone's westerns. America was certainly grand and sumptuous, but I wonder why the first half interested me much more than the second half.
National Lampoon's Barely Legal:
Two years before the superior (obviously) The Girl Next Door (which was essentially Risky Business for the 2000s), came this - an unfocused, only slightly amusing, American Pie wannabe about three randy virgins who decide to make a porno. There's some cheekiness throughout, but few chuckles, and the script in particular is a let down. I know for a fact I could have written something better (and I say this not from a position of arrogance) - indeed I have written better things than this - so it's grating to see such a half-assed job get made when I spend so much time focusing on character, motivation, and banter-style humour. Then again, if you've got the connections, and someone is willing to stump up cash for the project - in this case an American Pie-a-like - then you're set. So it's doubly grating as someone struggling to get into the business.
I look at a script like this and think "I could have done so much more with this idea, I could have really gone for the meat and served up some actual yucks" - I can do gross-out comedy, I can do comedy/drama, and right now I'm in the midst of doing a drama/mystery. If only I could get a paid gig, even on something like a cash-in comedy such as this, I would bloody well make it worthwhile seeing ... or at the very least give it some bloody good chuckles, like Miss March, another American Pie-a-like which wasn't great, but it sure had some bloody good laughs and a bit of style.
This, on the other hand, was cheap and mostly dull, and never delivered on the comedic promise of the central premise. National Lampoon has fallen a long way since the likes of Animal House, Christmas Vacation, and even Loaded Weapon.
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Pentuple Bill Mini Musings: Nerds, Dates, and the Summer of '73...
Revenge of the Nerds II, III and IV:
In "Nerds In Paradise" the gang are back (although not so much from Gilbert as Anthony Edwards is the does a 'one day of filming' appearance) and they're off to Florida to represent Lambda Lambda Lambda at a gathering of various fraternities. Cue the Alpha Betas seeking revenge for being booted off the Greek Council at the end of the first movie and silliness ensues. The comedy in this series never came thick & fast ... it didn't have the machine gun yuks of Airplane, and it wasn't in the era of gross-out gags of which American Pie is the most representative. Basically - Nerds in Florida, Alpha Beta's seek revenge, wins & losses occur, the Nerds win.
"The Next Generation" sees a fresh batch of geeks arrive at Adams College (from the first movie), which is now run by the nerds, but an old Alpha Beta alumni isn't happy, so he recruits Ted McGinley from the first movie and makes him Dean in order to cause trouble for all Nerd kind. Wins and losses occur, Louis has to rediscover his identity, and the Nerds win ... although part of the final act was missing for some strange reason after the DVR decided to skip 5 minutes.
"Nerds In Love" finds Booger getting married to the chick from that episode of Friends where Joey couldn't have sex, so he was repeatedly "there for her" (due to a paid fertility study). Hot chicks seem to have entirely come around to the idea that "once you go Nerd, you never go back", so the geeks are fighting off the ladies with sticks. A baby is on the way, a soon-to-be-father-in-law and his son-in-law attempt to sabotage the wedding for the sake of the 'blue blood' family tree, wins & losses occur - Nerds conquer, and everybody lives happily ever after.
At least the second had some of the edge of the first, because unfortunately the third and fourth were PG-rated TV-Movies.
Date Night:
Steve Carrell and Tina Fey are a "boring married couple from New Jersey", and somehow they find themselves chased by the mob in the Big Apple. Silliness ensues, with a few good gags and a likableness from the two leads. Comedy cannon fodder for a brain-off night.
Cemetery Junction:
Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant's coming-of-age comedy drama is a skilled balance of romanticism and realism set during the summer of 1973 in Reading, a place the 'Swinging Sixties' seemingly passed-by. Filled with well-observed slices of period history (e.g. social attitudes to sex, race and class), it's well worth having a look at. Thoughtful, enjoyable, but also real, the characters are grounded and satisfyingly complex and the plot moves with a considered and controlled sense of pace. Definitely worthwhile seeing.
In "Nerds In Paradise" the gang are back (although not so much from Gilbert as Anthony Edwards is the does a 'one day of filming' appearance) and they're off to Florida to represent Lambda Lambda Lambda at a gathering of various fraternities. Cue the Alpha Betas seeking revenge for being booted off the Greek Council at the end of the first movie and silliness ensues. The comedy in this series never came thick & fast ... it didn't have the machine gun yuks of Airplane, and it wasn't in the era of gross-out gags of which American Pie is the most representative. Basically - Nerds in Florida, Alpha Beta's seek revenge, wins & losses occur, the Nerds win.
"The Next Generation" sees a fresh batch of geeks arrive at Adams College (from the first movie), which is now run by the nerds, but an old Alpha Beta alumni isn't happy, so he recruits Ted McGinley from the first movie and makes him Dean in order to cause trouble for all Nerd kind. Wins and losses occur, Louis has to rediscover his identity, and the Nerds win ... although part of the final act was missing for some strange reason after the DVR decided to skip 5 minutes.
"Nerds In Love" finds Booger getting married to the chick from that episode of Friends where Joey couldn't have sex, so he was repeatedly "there for her" (due to a paid fertility study). Hot chicks seem to have entirely come around to the idea that "once you go Nerd, you never go back", so the geeks are fighting off the ladies with sticks. A baby is on the way, a soon-to-be-father-in-law and his son-in-law attempt to sabotage the wedding for the sake of the 'blue blood' family tree, wins & losses occur - Nerds conquer, and everybody lives happily ever after.
At least the second had some of the edge of the first, because unfortunately the third and fourth were PG-rated TV-Movies.
Date Night:
Steve Carrell and Tina Fey are a "boring married couple from New Jersey", and somehow they find themselves chased by the mob in the Big Apple. Silliness ensues, with a few good gags and a likableness from the two leads. Comedy cannon fodder for a brain-off night.
Cemetery Junction:
Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant's coming-of-age comedy drama is a skilled balance of romanticism and realism set during the summer of 1973 in Reading, a place the 'Swinging Sixties' seemingly passed-by. Filled with well-observed slices of period history (e.g. social attitudes to sex, race and class), it's well worth having a look at. Thoughtful, enjoyable, but also real, the characters are grounded and satisfyingly complex and the plot moves with a considered and controlled sense of pace. Definitely worthwhile seeing.
Monday, 7 February 2011
Pentuple Bill Mini Musings: January/Febuary 2011...
Point Break:
The only other Katherine Bigelow film I had seen up to this point was The Hurt Locker, however I was quite familiar with some of the iconography of this flick - namely 'the ex-Presidents' robbing banks, and the sky diving stuff - turns out it's a really fun action flick, and the sort that the film school graduate in me could have a field day with for an essay on sexual subtext. It's very much of the time of the early 1990s, but that's no bad thing. Plus the foot chase later on in the movie is great.
Harry Brown:
Like Gran Torino, only British - which, unsurprisingly, means 'set on a council estate and really goddamned bleak'. Perhaps that comes off as a bit snippy, but it is true that British film seems to be either obsessed with costume drama, or the criminal underclasses of the nation's inner city council estates and tower blocks - there's far more to Britain than that, and likewise the films produced here should expand beyond that more decisively.
That little rant aside though, it's a decent film - albeit, yeah, properly bleak. Gang crime, drugs, violence, intimidation, a police force that's completely divorced from giving a stuff about the problem ... it's a tough watch at times, but on the other hand you do get to see Caine's elderly avenger deliver vengence (in a British way). If only the darkness of the council estate featured wasn't representative of too many situations across the nation.
Where The Wild Things Are:
I had no knowledge of the book before reading about the film adaptation in Total Film, and while I didn't quite get what all the fuss was about, once we get to where the titular wild things actually are my interest did pique. Thematically it's a subtle film, which is a welcome change of pace - it could have so easily crammed the issues and character lessons down your throat, but it takes a different route ... although perhaps it could have been a little clearer in how it dealt with the themes, while still avoiding the usual bludgeoning approach we're so used to.
Still, when the kid eventually leaves the wild things, it was a really well handled and touching moment - and who doesn't want to watch a movie where James Gandolfini voices (movingly so) a big hairy monster that likes to smash shit up?
Ninja Assassin:
It has a standard enough revenge plot, so it's nothing to particularly write home about in that regard - however the action, violence and OTT Japanese-style gore is endlessly entertaining. So if you want to see some insane Ninja-related fighting, sword play, and shadowy action then it's well worth a look - oh and it's produced by the likes of Joel Silver and the Wachowskis ... so you should have an idea of the movie's style.
Youth In Revolt:
I'd intended on seeing this at the cinema last year but never got around to it. Turns out it's a decent little flick with Michael Cera getting to explore a different type of character than he's often considered to portray (namely, a laid back Breathless-inspired troublemaker). Enjoyable cameo performances and moments of animated whimsy round this out to be an entertainingly quirky tale of trouble-courting young love.
The only other Katherine Bigelow film I had seen up to this point was The Hurt Locker, however I was quite familiar with some of the iconography of this flick - namely 'the ex-Presidents' robbing banks, and the sky diving stuff - turns out it's a really fun action flick, and the sort that the film school graduate in me could have a field day with for an essay on sexual subtext. It's very much of the time of the early 1990s, but that's no bad thing. Plus the foot chase later on in the movie is great.
Harry Brown:
Like Gran Torino, only British - which, unsurprisingly, means 'set on a council estate and really goddamned bleak'. Perhaps that comes off as a bit snippy, but it is true that British film seems to be either obsessed with costume drama, or the criminal underclasses of the nation's inner city council estates and tower blocks - there's far more to Britain than that, and likewise the films produced here should expand beyond that more decisively.
That little rant aside though, it's a decent film - albeit, yeah, properly bleak. Gang crime, drugs, violence, intimidation, a police force that's completely divorced from giving a stuff about the problem ... it's a tough watch at times, but on the other hand you do get to see Caine's elderly avenger deliver vengence (in a British way). If only the darkness of the council estate featured wasn't representative of too many situations across the nation.
Where The Wild Things Are:
I had no knowledge of the book before reading about the film adaptation in Total Film, and while I didn't quite get what all the fuss was about, once we get to where the titular wild things actually are my interest did pique. Thematically it's a subtle film, which is a welcome change of pace - it could have so easily crammed the issues and character lessons down your throat, but it takes a different route ... although perhaps it could have been a little clearer in how it dealt with the themes, while still avoiding the usual bludgeoning approach we're so used to.
Still, when the kid eventually leaves the wild things, it was a really well handled and touching moment - and who doesn't want to watch a movie where James Gandolfini voices (movingly so) a big hairy monster that likes to smash shit up?
Ninja Assassin:
It has a standard enough revenge plot, so it's nothing to particularly write home about in that regard - however the action, violence and OTT Japanese-style gore is endlessly entertaining. So if you want to see some insane Ninja-related fighting, sword play, and shadowy action then it's well worth a look - oh and it's produced by the likes of Joel Silver and the Wachowskis ... so you should have an idea of the movie's style.
Youth In Revolt:
I'd intended on seeing this at the cinema last year but never got around to it. Turns out it's a decent little flick with Michael Cera getting to explore a different type of character than he's often considered to portray (namely, a laid back Breathless-inspired troublemaker). Enjoyable cameo performances and moments of animated whimsy round this out to be an entertainingly quirky tale of trouble-courting young love.
Saturday, 21 August 2010
Pentuple Bill Mini Musings: August 2010...
Westworld:
I'd only seen this once before - when I was about 12 - and while it has aged, horribly so at times, it's still an interesting concept. I couldn't help but think as I watched it "I wonder what a modern day remake of this would be like" as there's a lot of ideas that could be wrestled with in an even more in depth manner, with modern techniques, that are somewhat skimmed over or technically limited in the original movie.
The third act is a bit weak, it doesn't strive to fully investigate the subject matter, and it hasn't aged spectacularly well, but I still dig it for what it's worth. However, an intelligent remake that delivered heavily on the ideas as much as technically impressive action, would be something worthwhile. I guess we'll possibly find out in 2012.
Good Will Hunting:
It's another one of those movies where you don't see it until years later (13 years later in this instance), but you're all-too-aware of the numerous parodies and famous lines ("How do you like them apples?"). It was on TV the other day and I figured why not? The script is impressively researched, the 'Boston feel' is convincing, and the characters are interesting and complex ... no wonder it got so much praise.
Final Destination 3:
The first movie was quite good and memorable to boot, even if it did come out in the wake of Scream when horror had become a bit of a smart arse instead of a convincing genre. The second movie upped the ante on deliciously intricate death sequences, and that's really what the whole series is about. However in 2006 when 'Final Destination ... on a roller coaster' presented itself I wasn't interested, but four years later here we are. The deaths aren't intricate or as inventive as the previous movies, and the ending makes you wonder "was there any point in bothering?" but it has some moments.
The fourth movie is on Sky Movies soon so I'll check that out, but I'm not holding out much hope for the franchise now, especially with the abysmal titling of the fifth movie - "5inal Destination" ... so, what, "Five-in-al Destination"? Hmmm...
Revenge of the Nerds:
Old school 80s comedy - with Ted McGinley (who I know from Married With Children) and James Cromwell in it no less. Relatively tame and slow paced by today's standards, and not especially 'jam-packed' with ideas, it does speak of its time and no doubt if I was of the right age when it was new I would have absolutely loved it, but I'm just a bit too young to really see the attraction in this movie - not that I particularly disliked it, I was just a decade late to the party.
Still, I now 'get' the references to it in shows such as Family Guy and Robot Chicken.
Colin:
Much has been made of this being "the £45 zombie film" ... perhaps, but with an awful lot of favours, people, contacts and free work thrown into the mix. It could do with being about 20 minutes shorter and a little more focused and organised in its plotting, but overall I was quite impressed by it.
The film is, it has to be said, let down by the visual presentation - but then again that was part of the charm of it that so enraptured the slow-to-pay-attention mainstream media - but its real strength comes in numerous scenes that are well observed and/or pack an emotional punch. There is a subtlety to the film in the way big emotional situations are played out with little-or-no dialogue and instead with merely looks, careful framing, and an eye for explosive detail - the little visual cues that convey an essay's worth in a moment.
Certain sequences go on too long (such as a battle in a house with a hoard of the undead, and the dangers of someone's cellar), and the camerawork can be annoyingly shaky and dark at times ... but for every niggle or slight downside, there's a fantastic little idea thrown into the mix.
Working well with its low budget station, the zombie apocalypse playing out frequently as nothing but gunshots in the distance and a few newspaper headlines is a great way to sell a lot with very little. The film's full of these things and that makes it stand out. It's a great indie zombie flick, which really takes the subject matter seriously and deals with it in a mostly subtle manner - and what's more, on a few occasions it successfully struck an emotional wallop.
In a way it's a shame that so much attention has been given to the "£45" angle - although I can fully understand it, and condone it, as a marketing and attention-acquiring gimmick - but it does hide the real quality going on beneath the very low budget outer shell. It'll be interesting and exciting, to say the least, to see what the Director can do with a bit of money at his disposal.
I'd only seen this once before - when I was about 12 - and while it has aged, horribly so at times, it's still an interesting concept. I couldn't help but think as I watched it "I wonder what a modern day remake of this would be like" as there's a lot of ideas that could be wrestled with in an even more in depth manner, with modern techniques, that are somewhat skimmed over or technically limited in the original movie.
The third act is a bit weak, it doesn't strive to fully investigate the subject matter, and it hasn't aged spectacularly well, but I still dig it for what it's worth. However, an intelligent remake that delivered heavily on the ideas as much as technically impressive action, would be something worthwhile. I guess we'll possibly find out in 2012.
Good Will Hunting:
It's another one of those movies where you don't see it until years later (13 years later in this instance), but you're all-too-aware of the numerous parodies and famous lines ("How do you like them apples?"). It was on TV the other day and I figured why not? The script is impressively researched, the 'Boston feel' is convincing, and the characters are interesting and complex ... no wonder it got so much praise.
Final Destination 3:
The first movie was quite good and memorable to boot, even if it did come out in the wake of Scream when horror had become a bit of a smart arse instead of a convincing genre. The second movie upped the ante on deliciously intricate death sequences, and that's really what the whole series is about. However in 2006 when 'Final Destination ... on a roller coaster' presented itself I wasn't interested, but four years later here we are. The deaths aren't intricate or as inventive as the previous movies, and the ending makes you wonder "was there any point in bothering?" but it has some moments.
The fourth movie is on Sky Movies soon so I'll check that out, but I'm not holding out much hope for the franchise now, especially with the abysmal titling of the fifth movie - "5inal Destination" ... so, what, "Five-in-al Destination"? Hmmm...
Revenge of the Nerds:
Old school 80s comedy - with Ted McGinley (who I know from Married With Children) and James Cromwell in it no less. Relatively tame and slow paced by today's standards, and not especially 'jam-packed' with ideas, it does speak of its time and no doubt if I was of the right age when it was new I would have absolutely loved it, but I'm just a bit too young to really see the attraction in this movie - not that I particularly disliked it, I was just a decade late to the party.
Still, I now 'get' the references to it in shows such as Family Guy and Robot Chicken.
Colin:
Much has been made of this being "the £45 zombie film" ... perhaps, but with an awful lot of favours, people, contacts and free work thrown into the mix. It could do with being about 20 minutes shorter and a little more focused and organised in its plotting, but overall I was quite impressed by it.
The film is, it has to be said, let down by the visual presentation - but then again that was part of the charm of it that so enraptured the slow-to-pay-attention mainstream media - but its real strength comes in numerous scenes that are well observed and/or pack an emotional punch. There is a subtlety to the film in the way big emotional situations are played out with little-or-no dialogue and instead with merely looks, careful framing, and an eye for explosive detail - the little visual cues that convey an essay's worth in a moment.
Certain sequences go on too long (such as a battle in a house with a hoard of the undead, and the dangers of someone's cellar), and the camerawork can be annoyingly shaky and dark at times ... but for every niggle or slight downside, there's a fantastic little idea thrown into the mix.
Working well with its low budget station, the zombie apocalypse playing out frequently as nothing but gunshots in the distance and a few newspaper headlines is a great way to sell a lot with very little. The film's full of these things and that makes it stand out. It's a great indie zombie flick, which really takes the subject matter seriously and deals with it in a mostly subtle manner - and what's more, on a few occasions it successfully struck an emotional wallop.
In a way it's a shame that so much attention has been given to the "£45" angle - although I can fully understand it, and condone it, as a marketing and attention-acquiring gimmick - but it does hide the real quality going on beneath the very low budget outer shell. It'll be interesting and exciting, to say the least, to see what the Director can do with a bit of money at his disposal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
%20001.jpg)
Posts
