Yes - it has taken me ages to get around to musing on this flick - but never mind, because here comes some muse-juice.
Saw V, basically it's an entire film made simply to explain what the fuck happened in Saw IV, and why the fuck that Hoffman dude - who looked pretty much identical to that Strahm guy - decided to come over all Jigsaw's New Apprentice. As Amanda got the Alan Sugar treatment for not paying attention to "the rules", and simply made torture devices to do nothing but kill, she was out of the game.
There's a similar strand connected to this Hoffman dude, but it's all pretty up in the air to be honest. Why bother investing the time and effort into believing what's happened when it'll just be re-explained in the next movie or two?
I thought the original Saw was a genuinely interesting and fresh slice of low budget indie horror ... then Saw II happened (resulting from a non-Saw script that was so similar to the franchise in question here, they just said "oh fuck it, just make that the next Saw movie instead") which was decidedly "meh" ... then Saw III came along, and I thought tidied it all up quite nicely. I would have ideally left it there - Jigsaw dies, Amanda dies, that nurse dies, the dude dies and the kid is left in that room - a suitably bleak, but final ending to the franchise.
Then they simply had to blunder in with the abominable Saw IV, in which they thought "oh bugger, we've practically killed off every single character except for one or two 'background artists' who had a couple of lines - let's make them the new focus of the movie!" ... so we ended up with that SWAT guy, who suddenly decides to overstep his official duties and come over all Inspector Gadget - minus the gadgets, humour, dog, niece, but with all the dopey barging forward.
I bet he wishes he had a ruff-talking dog and a super-smart crime-fighting niece watching his back though, because like many of the characters in the Saw franchise, they don't pay a blind bit of notice to "the rules" - a factor especially galling in Saw IV and now Saw V. You'd have thought that, mostly being detectives, they'd detect the key to surviving a Jigsaw "test" - do what he says, listen carefully to the message (although admittedly, you don't have to listen that carefully to get the underlying message).
At this stage it's become a franchise centred around torturing bastards and testing career-obsessed people in possession of one-tracked-minds.
Saw V is no different - you've got the ludicrous amount of time-line-bothering back-and-forth, a protagonist that doesn't pay attention to "the rules", a bunch of daft twists, more evidence of how Jigsaw seemingly possessed the ability to foresee the future as clear as crystal (explained limply by saying 'if you can predict human behaviour, then you'll do alright in this game sunshine') and of course - lashings of gore.
Now, as a gore-hound, the effects are eye-saucering ... although the sheer volume of nastiness, rather than Savini-style spectacle and magic, becomes swiftly hard-to-swallow, especially when you realise that there's yet more Saw films to come ... a sixth for sure.
Like I suggested earlier, it should have ended at Saw III, nuff said ... but oh no, they've gotta keep blundering on, making the franchise stray into intensely preposterous territory and further and further away from it's indie roots of intrigue and shock.
Saw V didn't shock me. I did grimace a couple of times - but then again, if you don't grimace at some poor bastard's forearm bursting through his flesh with squishy sound effects, then you simply aren't human and nobody in their right mind would want to meet you down a dark alley. Was Saw V any better than Saw IV? Probably, because it explained (mostly) what the fuck Saw IV was supposed to all be about.
The franchise really has become an industry unto itself (with spiralling production costs, and diminishing returns) ... a cookie cutter industry. Take the "Hello Zepp" theme tune, whack it on the audio track, give the cameraman some speed and some assorted hallucinatory drugs so he can flap around all over the latest trap like an ADD-addled hamster, have the writers take another kind of drug that lends itself to developing vast plot twists that could rival the daftest conspiracies bandied about by morons on "teh intarwebz" for head-scratched "eh?"-ness ... ... *gasp* ... ... then get an editor who also acts like a drug-addled rodent, and some CGI whizz-kid to splash a bit of digital-gore about to help turn the whole film into a frenetic lump of chaos in post production.
And new to the method with Saw V, add a bunch of distracting oval patches of post-production work where you've had to lighten the image up because you've suddenly realised the image is too dark, when really, you should have just left it alone.
So in summary (about time too), Saw V ... well I guess it's better than Saw IV, but that movie was utter shite, so it's not saying much really is it? Well, see you in a few months for some chit-chat about Saw VI, I guess...*sigh*
Friday, 9 January 2009
Monday, 5 January 2009
Minghags...
I've always liked Haggard - Bam Margera's first foray into fiction-based filmmaking - and so it was about bloody time he got around to doing another one, rather than so much of this MTV japery.
The problem however, with Margera's style of fictional filmmaking, is that it all ends up being a bunch of ideas tied together somewhat loosely, often involving so many in-jokes you have to be a Margera-follower to get a good amount of laugh-time out of it.
Haggard though, when compared to Minghags, certainly had a much tighter narrative through-line to guide us through the silliness and bum-based crudeness (even if it was all a bit melodramatic and over-acted when it got down to the nitty-gritty).
Minghags on the other hand, has a story running throughout, but quite often it meanders off into numerous alleys that ultimately end up unexplored to enough extent. It ricochets from one in-joke to another, one wild idea to the next. As a result it all feels a bit cluttered and scattershot.
Somewhat annoyingly, the Margera/Frantz visual style hasn't really developed either. Constant wobbling around rather than any attempt to gain consistent coverage, scattered use of the distracting fish-eye lens and over-use of fast-motion (although not quite as much as Haggard, which used it as excessively as a kid with a new, exciting toy), to name a few things.
There needs to be a bit more organisational effort put into a film to really make it hang together ... some tighter writing would really sort this out, and when done right can still include all the daft ideas to make your heart content.
Enough of the criticism though. Ultimately I did enjoy Minghags - and this was during a rather dribbly, shivery time in a rather violent outburst of post-New Year illness. No doubt upon second viewing, I'll like it more without the distraction of an aching nasal cavity, of sore teeth, of a bunged up hooter, of watery eyes and a dry mouth.
Mind you, this film probably works best with the employ of booze and some mates to watch it with (and probably something else, for those of you so inclined).
And it is good to see Margera looking (albeit briefly) outside of his usual circle of family and friends to find actors ... although like I said, this is brief. The majority of the film is a veritable who's who of the Margera universe ... which also goes for locations - however, that said, thankfully we don't see a huge amount of familiar settings (it was a bit much in Haggard to be honest, to see the same locations we'd seen plenty of already). And even though there is joy to be had from the likes of Pop-Pop, Mark the Bagger and Boof, the stuttery editing down of their 'one line at a time' coached performances does prove somewhat distracting after a while.
Hopefully with his next fictional outing, he'll seek to address some of these niggles ... to make something a bit more consistent, a bit more organised, a bit more polished and detailed - while importantly keeping all the infectious silliness that makes his stuff worth watching in the first place, which is certainly found in abundance in Minghags.
The problem however, with Margera's style of fictional filmmaking, is that it all ends up being a bunch of ideas tied together somewhat loosely, often involving so many in-jokes you have to be a Margera-follower to get a good amount of laugh-time out of it.
Haggard though, when compared to Minghags, certainly had a much tighter narrative through-line to guide us through the silliness and bum-based crudeness (even if it was all a bit melodramatic and over-acted when it got down to the nitty-gritty).
Minghags on the other hand, has a story running throughout, but quite often it meanders off into numerous alleys that ultimately end up unexplored to enough extent. It ricochets from one in-joke to another, one wild idea to the next. As a result it all feels a bit cluttered and scattershot.
Somewhat annoyingly, the Margera/Frantz visual style hasn't really developed either. Constant wobbling around rather than any attempt to gain consistent coverage, scattered use of the distracting fish-eye lens and over-use of fast-motion (although not quite as much as Haggard, which used it as excessively as a kid with a new, exciting toy), to name a few things.
There needs to be a bit more organisational effort put into a film to really make it hang together ... some tighter writing would really sort this out, and when done right can still include all the daft ideas to make your heart content.
Enough of the criticism though. Ultimately I did enjoy Minghags - and this was during a rather dribbly, shivery time in a rather violent outburst of post-New Year illness. No doubt upon second viewing, I'll like it more without the distraction of an aching nasal cavity, of sore teeth, of a bunged up hooter, of watery eyes and a dry mouth.
Mind you, this film probably works best with the employ of booze and some mates to watch it with (and probably something else, for those of you so inclined).
And it is good to see Margera looking (albeit briefly) outside of his usual circle of family and friends to find actors ... although like I said, this is brief. The majority of the film is a veritable who's who of the Margera universe ... which also goes for locations - however, that said, thankfully we don't see a huge amount of familiar settings (it was a bit much in Haggard to be honest, to see the same locations we'd seen plenty of already). And even though there is joy to be had from the likes of Pop-Pop, Mark the Bagger and Boof, the stuttery editing down of their 'one line at a time' coached performances does prove somewhat distracting after a while.
Hopefully with his next fictional outing, he'll seek to address some of these niggles ... to make something a bit more consistent, a bit more organised, a bit more polished and detailed - while importantly keeping all the infectious silliness that makes his stuff worth watching in the first place, which is certainly found in abundance in Minghags.
Ghost Town...
Ricky Gervais ... he's a funny fucker isn't he? Yes he is, and Ghost Town doesn't fail to get a laugh out of a Gervais fan, and while quite a lot of the plot is standard, it does what it does well - with ample back up by Tea Leoni as the cute, cooky chick.
However, amongst the stock parts, there are moments of genuine surprise and warmth - it certainly cheered me up when I watched it with a ghastly cold (at the time of viewing I was dribbling profusely and going through a session of 'the sweats'), and yet "lulz" were indeed had.
Good for a laugh and ideal for Gervais fans.
However, amongst the stock parts, there are moments of genuine surprise and warmth - it certainly cheered me up when I watched it with a ghastly cold (at the time of viewing I was dribbling profusely and going through a session of 'the sweats'), and yet "lulz" were indeed had.
Good for a laugh and ideal for Gervais fans.
Yes Man...
Danny Wallace ... us Brits know him as "the guy off the telly who does weird-idea docu-tainment shows". The Americans probably have no idea who he is whatsoever, so they'll miss the cameo in a bar scene by the writer himself, whose book about him saying "YES!" to everything for a year (if I'm not mistaken) was used as a basis for this Jim Carrey vehicle.
I went to see it between Xmas and New Year, and while not a master stroke of comedy, it ticks all the right boxes for a solid chunk of entertainment. While yes, Carrey does the serious stuff well, we do rather like seeing him flap around like a clown (have you seen Ace Ventura lately? Damn that stuff's still gold).
No doubt the film is only loosely based on the original book, but it marches along with a sure stride and makes you chuckle - so aye, it's definitely worth seeing.
I went to see it between Xmas and New Year, and while not a master stroke of comedy, it ticks all the right boxes for a solid chunk of entertainment. While yes, Carrey does the serious stuff well, we do rather like seeing him flap around like a clown (have you seen Ace Ventura lately? Damn that stuff's still gold).
No doubt the film is only loosely based on the original book, but it marches along with a sure stride and makes you chuckle - so aye, it's definitely worth seeing.
Mum & Dad...
Low budget Brit-horror, the British Texas Chainsaw Massacre as those behind the flick tout it, and you can see why. A ram-shackle band of a 'family' inflicting untold horrors upon their captives, while the filmmakers completely shred the rosy image the vast majority of the viewing public have when "family" springs to mind ... or indeed "Mum & Dad" ... which is quite possibly at the heart of why this flick fucks with your head.
Just saying the title immediately sparks your brain into thinking that you're on about your own parents, when in fact you're talking about the fictional "Mum & Dad" in this "micro budget" horror (the words of Microwave, one the groups behind it, not me - £100,000 to me is a shedload of cash).
Anyway - fucked up this movie most definitely is, and it's not always from what you see - it's often what you see suggests. At the peak of this mountain of creep-inducing familial slaying is 'what' is upstairs ... when you think beyond what you're simply seeing in those moments, and a bit deeper (as the result of a few words), you can't help but screw yourself up into a ball making a variety of disturbed and/or disgusted noises.
It's low budget, it has a story, it sits amidst a group of horror movie peers which have always sat high above the rest of the genre - and indeed the many of today's offerings. Hostel as a franchise was never that good (I maintain that the two movies could have been merged into one script, and that that on film would have been worthwhile) ... and SAW, as a franchise, farted out like a released baloon when #4 came along (#1 and #3 good, #2 meh, #4 shite, #5 I haven't even seen yet).
It doesn't hang around either at a slim 85 minutes, but it's a must-see for proper horror fans seeking something much more than another trap-obsessed torture film with either little to say, or such a preposterously convoluted plot you just can't be arsed.
And for those who saw High Tension (aka Switchblade Romance) and thought it was messed up when the dude shags that severed head ... well, take that general idea ... and just make it more disturbed. Yep, that's one of the multitude of reasons why "Mum & Dad" is highly recommended to all horror-heads.
Just saying the title immediately sparks your brain into thinking that you're on about your own parents, when in fact you're talking about the fictional "Mum & Dad" in this "micro budget" horror (the words of Microwave, one the groups behind it, not me - £100,000 to me is a shedload of cash).
Anyway - fucked up this movie most definitely is, and it's not always from what you see - it's often what you see suggests. At the peak of this mountain of creep-inducing familial slaying is 'what' is upstairs ... when you think beyond what you're simply seeing in those moments, and a bit deeper (as the result of a few words), you can't help but screw yourself up into a ball making a variety of disturbed and/or disgusted noises.
It's low budget, it has a story, it sits amidst a group of horror movie peers which have always sat high above the rest of the genre - and indeed the many of today's offerings. Hostel as a franchise was never that good (I maintain that the two movies could have been merged into one script, and that that on film would have been worthwhile) ... and SAW, as a franchise, farted out like a released baloon when #4 came along (#1 and #3 good, #2 meh, #4 shite, #5 I haven't even seen yet).
It doesn't hang around either at a slim 85 minutes, but it's a must-see for proper horror fans seeking something much more than another trap-obsessed torture film with either little to say, or such a preposterously convoluted plot you just can't be arsed.
And for those who saw High Tension (aka Switchblade Romance) and thought it was messed up when the dude shags that severed head ... well, take that general idea ... and just make it more disturbed. Yep, that's one of the multitude of reasons why "Mum & Dad" is highly recommended to all horror-heads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
