The Uninvited is a remake of the Korean film A Tale of Two Sisters. It is, somewhat a tale of two sisters. It is also the story of a crazy bitch whose craziness is apparently enough to explain every single flaw in the film.
The crazy bitch in question is young Anna, played fairly ably by Emily Browning (of Lemony Snicket ‘fame’). Anna is in a mental institute following an attempted suicide after the ‘accidental’ death of her ill mother. At the start of the film she is released back to her family, including new step-mother Rachel Summers (Elizabeth Banks – another example of a more than competent actor lowering themselves to a very poor standard), father Steven (David Straitharn), and her sister Alex (Arielle Kebbel).
The plot centres on Anna’s suspicion that Rachel had something to do with the death of her mother, as Rachel was nurse to the mother at the time of her death. She manages to get Alex on the side of her theory, but Rachel manages to get in the way every time Anna tries to communicate this to her father, or to (brief) love interest Matthew.
Given that this film runs at a very short 83 minutes, you may be forgiven for thinking that something would have happened by around the 50 minute mark. Not so. There have been a few scenes of tension between Anna and Rachel, as well as a fairly standard “Dad, I know you won’t believe me, but your new girlfriend killed our mum” “Don’t be crazy. You need to learn to love your new mum, because I love her, and you should be happy that I’m happy” type scene, but nothing else of any note.
All the supposed drama occurs in the last few minutes, and given how straightforward the plot has been up until this point, it seems fairly academic to point out that there is a twist at the end. It isn’t a great twist. Or even a good one. To reveal it, while doing you the favour of not making you watch this atrocity, would still be slightly amiss. However, it is safe to say that this is not a new twist. In fact, imagine a cross between the twist in Shrooms and the twist in the remake of My Bloody Valentine, and you are pretty much there.
The Uninvited is directed by The Guard Brothers – Thomas and Charles – a British pair who have only existed in the medium of short film before this, and while it may be slightly harsh, it would make sense for them to stay away from feature film for a while longer. The immaturity in their direction – somehow succeeding in creating a horror film devoid of tension, dread or indeed horror only adds to the failings of the script, written by Craig Rosenberg, Doug Miro and Carlo Bernard.
This is a terrible film. There is no disputing that fact. Like most films, this has a redeeming factor, in that the four main performances (Browning, Kebbel, Banks, Straitharn) were all more than competent. Good performances do not a good film make, however, and this has to go down as the worst film of 2009 to this point.
*
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Year One
Harold Ramis. Jack Black. Michael Cera. Hank Azaria. Paul Rudd. Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Just some of the names that star in/direct one of the biggest comedies of 2009, written by Gene Stupnitsky (The Office) and Harold Ramis (Ghostbusters, Groundhog Day and Animal House to name but a few). Somehow, despite the stellar names and a fairly watertight premise, Year One doesn't quite deliver.
Perhaps the episodic nature of Zed and Oh's quest through the early days of man is to blame for the failings of Year One. The almost sketch-like quality of some scenes makes this play out as a cheap imitation of Monty Python more than an original comedy operating of its own will.
The joke writing is, as expected, fantastic. As are the deliveries from both Michael Cera and Jack Black, with it looking like the film was written specifically for the pair (a more than possible suggestion). Cera's naive awkwardness combined with Black's extroverted showmanship makes for an excellent comedic combination, and some of their exchanges deserve to have been put in a better film.
It is always slightly saddening to see TV stars toiling away in bit parts in movies that aren’t fit to wipe the shoes of the shows that comprise their day job. Here we have Olivia Wilde (Thirteen from House) and Xander Berkeley (George Mason of 24) in roles that are far beneath them. Berkeley spends his time on screen gurning like a fool, while Wilde’s input is apparently to look sultry and put on a fairly poor English accent, or at least I think that’s what she was doing.
Year One is by no means a bad film. In a year that has seen the likes of Bruno and Lesbian Vampire Killers, at least this manages to stay on the side of good taste. Having said that, it does seem to be stuck in the past. Cera’s other major feature of the year, Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist, symbolises a new wave of comedic films, supported ably by Sam Mendes’ Away We Go and (500) Days of Summer, from Marc Webb. These are comedies based around believable, likeable characters. Year One is a series of events that doesn’t lend itself well to the feature film format.
This is certainly not the worst film of the year, nor is it even close, but coming from the range of names that it does, Year One can only be seen as a disappointment. Jack Black will always keep people amused, but this film smacks of a lazy vehicle created solely for his improvisational comedy to take centre stage.
As I write this, I am aware that a sequel is on its way. One can only hope that a little more effort is put into it than there was first time round, and that there are less gaps in the script where it says “Roll camera on JB for five minutes, see if anything good comes up.”
**½
Perhaps the episodic nature of Zed and Oh's quest through the early days of man is to blame for the failings of Year One. The almost sketch-like quality of some scenes makes this play out as a cheap imitation of Monty Python more than an original comedy operating of its own will.
The joke writing is, as expected, fantastic. As are the deliveries from both Michael Cera and Jack Black, with it looking like the film was written specifically for the pair (a more than possible suggestion). Cera's naive awkwardness combined with Black's extroverted showmanship makes for an excellent comedic combination, and some of their exchanges deserve to have been put in a better film.
It is always slightly saddening to see TV stars toiling away in bit parts in movies that aren’t fit to wipe the shoes of the shows that comprise their day job. Here we have Olivia Wilde (Thirteen from House) and Xander Berkeley (George Mason of 24) in roles that are far beneath them. Berkeley spends his time on screen gurning like a fool, while Wilde’s input is apparently to look sultry and put on a fairly poor English accent, or at least I think that’s what she was doing.
Year One is by no means a bad film. In a year that has seen the likes of Bruno and Lesbian Vampire Killers, at least this manages to stay on the side of good taste. Having said that, it does seem to be stuck in the past. Cera’s other major feature of the year, Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist, symbolises a new wave of comedic films, supported ably by Sam Mendes’ Away We Go and (500) Days of Summer, from Marc Webb. These are comedies based around believable, likeable characters. Year One is a series of events that doesn’t lend itself well to the feature film format.
This is certainly not the worst film of the year, nor is it even close, but coming from the range of names that it does, Year One can only be seen as a disappointment. Jack Black will always keep people amused, but this film smacks of a lazy vehicle created solely for his improvisational comedy to take centre stage.
As I write this, I am aware that a sequel is on its way. One can only hope that a little more effort is put into it than there was first time round, and that there are less gaps in the script where it says “Roll camera on JB for five minutes, see if anything good comes up.”
**½
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Dry River Road
Leo Whitlock, the main character of Rory Haines’ short Dry River Road, is clearly a very troubled man.
He is living out of his car, shaving in the bathroom at a highway petrol station, and lying to his estranged wife about his (un)employment status. The reason for this, we don’t know. He is a veteran of the Iraq war, this much we do know, but after that it all becomes a bit muddy.
Is he a violent man? His constant badgering of Akeem for a job at said petrol station is pushy enough that it borders on the “one more rejection and he might just lamp you” side of things, but his absolute horror at what later happens might equally suggest otherwise.
He certainly isn’t the smartest man around; stealing money from a dead man, smearing blood on himself and tucking the murder weapon into his jeans doesn’t suggest that all his bulbs are burning at their brightest, but maybe he is really just that desperate.
Perhaps Leo has been dishonourably discharged from the US Army. This could explain his apparent lack of self-discipline (and vice-versa). It would also go some way to explaining why he is having such a hard time finding a job.
A dishonourable discharge may even account for the lack of contact with his wife and son, and why his wife has no interest in entertaining him at all.
Of course, what it all comes down to is whether or not Leo could ever make anything of himself. There is absolutely nothing here to suggest that he is comfortable with meeting the standards that society expects of him.
The case in point: his attire. He has gone to Akeem to ask for a job, but has completely neglected to spruce himself up in any effort to impress his prospective employer.
His absolute lack of respect for Akeem is symptomatic of something altogether more sinister. While we aren’t told of Akeem’s heritage, it is safe to assume that he is of Middle Eastern origin, and the underlying menace of the interaction between the two comes from Leo’s instinct to play with a small American flag while talking to Akeem.
Leo may not consider himself a racist, but his actions in the scene convey a sense of racial tension that could explain everything about Leo and his character.
The thirteen minutes that we see here are the thirteen minutes that change the life of Leo. The lack of any sort of “crash bang wallop” force-feeding of dramatic impact is one of the film’s major strengths.
Through both the way it is shot – conventional, trendy handheld style – and the lack of dictatorial music, the film manages to achieve both a subtlety and a harrowing bleakness that takes it to a higher level, particularly impressive given it is a first time effort from Haines, as well as a first time effort for writer Sohrab Noshirvani.
***½
He is living out of his car, shaving in the bathroom at a highway petrol station, and lying to his estranged wife about his (un)employment status. The reason for this, we don’t know. He is a veteran of the Iraq war, this much we do know, but after that it all becomes a bit muddy.
Is he a violent man? His constant badgering of Akeem for a job at said petrol station is pushy enough that it borders on the “one more rejection and he might just lamp you” side of things, but his absolute horror at what later happens might equally suggest otherwise.
He certainly isn’t the smartest man around; stealing money from a dead man, smearing blood on himself and tucking the murder weapon into his jeans doesn’t suggest that all his bulbs are burning at their brightest, but maybe he is really just that desperate.
Perhaps Leo has been dishonourably discharged from the US Army. This could explain his apparent lack of self-discipline (and vice-versa). It would also go some way to explaining why he is having such a hard time finding a job.
A dishonourable discharge may even account for the lack of contact with his wife and son, and why his wife has no interest in entertaining him at all.
Of course, what it all comes down to is whether or not Leo could ever make anything of himself. There is absolutely nothing here to suggest that he is comfortable with meeting the standards that society expects of him.
The case in point: his attire. He has gone to Akeem to ask for a job, but has completely neglected to spruce himself up in any effort to impress his prospective employer.
His absolute lack of respect for Akeem is symptomatic of something altogether more sinister. While we aren’t told of Akeem’s heritage, it is safe to assume that he is of Middle Eastern origin, and the underlying menace of the interaction between the two comes from Leo’s instinct to play with a small American flag while talking to Akeem.
Leo may not consider himself a racist, but his actions in the scene convey a sense of racial tension that could explain everything about Leo and his character.
The thirteen minutes that we see here are the thirteen minutes that change the life of Leo. The lack of any sort of “crash bang wallop” force-feeding of dramatic impact is one of the film’s major strengths.
Through both the way it is shot – conventional, trendy handheld style – and the lack of dictatorial music, the film manages to achieve both a subtlety and a harrowing bleakness that takes it to a higher level, particularly impressive given it is a first time effort from Haines, as well as a first time effort for writer Sohrab Noshirvani.
***½
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Nick, Norah and Dave's Infinite Playlist
I love Nick and Norah. Do you know who else I love? Tom and Summer. Juno and Bleeker. I love Burt and Verona. I even love Jim and Pam. Why? Because they are all me and us and everybody we know. Everybody everywhere sees themselves as the slightly off-centre person that no-one quite gets but is really the best person in the world, and we all deserve to have our happiness.
There are some differences in the way the five above relationships evolve.
Nick and Norah: they fall in love in one night and miss catching their own white whale just to be with each other.
Tom and Summer: absolutely right for each other, but destined to be apart.
Juno and Bleeker: two friends who are forced to realise how much they love each other by a mistake.
Burt and Verona: a perfect couple in an imperfect world.
Jim and Pam: absolutely right for each other, but manage to miss each other several times before it works.
Of course, it could be because I love Michael Cera, John Krasinski, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Kat Dennings, Zooey Deschanel, Ellen Page, Maya Rudolph, and (most of all) Jenna Fischer that I want to be these people, but I think there is more to it. I think there is something in misery that attracts me to these people.
The most effective couples here, for me, are Tom and Summer, and Jim and Pam. Not pregnant Jim and Pam, engaged Jim and Pam, or happy Jim and Pam. Jim and Pam when it's Jim (and Karen) and Pam, or Jim and Pam (and Roy). I love misery.
I loved wallowing in the misery of watching Tom waste his time with Summer, and thinking "Yep, that's right" when he eventually lost her. I loved the misery of Jim having to watch Pam and Roy set a date for their wedding. I've come to realise that (as Motorhead so succinctly put it) the chase is better than the catch.
Of course, when Nick and Norah finally got the chance to watch Where's Fluffy? they left to spend time with each other. They didn't need to see this band, they just needed to see that they could see this band if they wanted to.
Why should Nick and Norah watch this band now? At least a small part of the attraction was the mysticism that went along with them. When (presumably) a few normal guys walks out on the stage...where's the fun in that? When Dorothy finally meets the wizard and he's one small man surrounded by smoke and mirrors, where's the magic in that? When Willard finally meets Kurtz and he's one fat guy surrounded by a horde of drug-addled children, where's the awe in that? When Tom finally gets to be with Summer and she doesn't want to be with him forever, and doesn't want to grow old with him, and doesn't want everything he wants, where's the true love in that?
For me, I can take this in one of two ways. Number one:
When man finally figures out who Jesus/God/Allah/whoever is/was and he's just one guy with a beard who did some good in the world, we will destroy our idols. The chase is much better than the catch. It doesn't matter if there is a god or not. Some guy does believe it, I don't. We both enjoy our sides of the argument, until the day one of us is right or wrong, and then nobody cares anymore.
Version two goes like this:
Who needs to have everything they want? There comes a point when you get a better TV and it's just a slightly sharper image. You get to be with the person of your dreams and they aren't the same person as was in your dreams. They share the same body, but this person doesn't care about whether you want to go out or stay in. It doesn't matter to them. Again, the chase is better than the catch. For all the promise something might hold in mind, it will never fulfil it.
There is no point to dreaming. I suppose there is no real harm in dreaming either, but one has to be realistic. As for the misery I mentioned earlier, I just enjoy misery. I am a miserable person. It works for me. I have friends who manage to counterbalance the way I am and that works for me too.
That's why I love all those people. They, for me, are the chase. Their chase is my chase. I don't know what the catch will be for me. Maybe one day it will happen and it will be just as good as the chase. Maybe one day something will happen to me and I will catch the bug of optimism. Or religion. Or love. But I hope not, because I like the chase. I like to be miserable, to wallow, and to wait. And that is why I love Nick and Norah. They know the chase is better than the catch.
There are some differences in the way the five above relationships evolve.
Nick and Norah: they fall in love in one night and miss catching their own white whale just to be with each other.
Tom and Summer: absolutely right for each other, but destined to be apart.
Juno and Bleeker: two friends who are forced to realise how much they love each other by a mistake.
Burt and Verona: a perfect couple in an imperfect world.
Jim and Pam: absolutely right for each other, but manage to miss each other several times before it works.
Of course, it could be because I love Michael Cera, John Krasinski, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Kat Dennings, Zooey Deschanel, Ellen Page, Maya Rudolph, and (most of all) Jenna Fischer that I want to be these people, but I think there is more to it. I think there is something in misery that attracts me to these people.
The most effective couples here, for me, are Tom and Summer, and Jim and Pam. Not pregnant Jim and Pam, engaged Jim and Pam, or happy Jim and Pam. Jim and Pam when it's Jim (and Karen) and Pam, or Jim and Pam (and Roy). I love misery.
I loved wallowing in the misery of watching Tom waste his time with Summer, and thinking "Yep, that's right" when he eventually lost her. I loved the misery of Jim having to watch Pam and Roy set a date for their wedding. I've come to realise that (as Motorhead so succinctly put it) the chase is better than the catch.
Of course, when Nick and Norah finally got the chance to watch Where's Fluffy? they left to spend time with each other. They didn't need to see this band, they just needed to see that they could see this band if they wanted to.
Why should Nick and Norah watch this band now? At least a small part of the attraction was the mysticism that went along with them. When (presumably) a few normal guys walks out on the stage...where's the fun in that? When Dorothy finally meets the wizard and he's one small man surrounded by smoke and mirrors, where's the magic in that? When Willard finally meets Kurtz and he's one fat guy surrounded by a horde of drug-addled children, where's the awe in that? When Tom finally gets to be with Summer and she doesn't want to be with him forever, and doesn't want to grow old with him, and doesn't want everything he wants, where's the true love in that?
For me, I can take this in one of two ways. Number one:
When man finally figures out who Jesus/God/Allah/whoever is/was and he's just one guy with a beard who did some good in the world, we will destroy our idols. The chase is much better than the catch. It doesn't matter if there is a god or not. Some guy does believe it, I don't. We both enjoy our sides of the argument, until the day one of us is right or wrong, and then nobody cares anymore.
Version two goes like this:
Who needs to have everything they want? There comes a point when you get a better TV and it's just a slightly sharper image. You get to be with the person of your dreams and they aren't the same person as was in your dreams. They share the same body, but this person doesn't care about whether you want to go out or stay in. It doesn't matter to them. Again, the chase is better than the catch. For all the promise something might hold in mind, it will never fulfil it.
There is no point to dreaming. I suppose there is no real harm in dreaming either, but one has to be realistic. As for the misery I mentioned earlier, I just enjoy misery. I am a miserable person. It works for me. I have friends who manage to counterbalance the way I am and that works for me too.
That's why I love all those people. They, for me, are the chase. Their chase is my chase. I don't know what the catch will be for me. Maybe one day it will happen and it will be just as good as the chase. Maybe one day something will happen to me and I will catch the bug of optimism. Or religion. Or love. But I hope not, because I like the chase. I like to be miserable, to wallow, and to wait. And that is why I love Nick and Norah. They know the chase is better than the catch.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Hancock
So after five months without so much as a peep, I have finally decided to get my arse in gear. I am participating in the Movie of the Week thing on the Simply Syndicated forums, and as such I am going to review each film we watch. First up (second actually, but I couldn't be bothered to review Bladerunner) is Peter Berg's Hancock. Here we go...
In amongst a spate of “serious” and “dark” superhero movies of late - The Dark Knight and Watchmen come to mind as primary examples – Hancock must have seemed like a breath of fresh air when the original trailers began showing; a comedy, not a spoof, about a pissed-off superhero who doesn’t care about the public he protects. However, after the initial 40 minutes of comedy antics and stunning set-pieces, the film takes a sharp left-turn that can only be described as inexplicable.
I’m sure that I’m not the only person who was enjoying the entertaining, if simple, plot of Jason Bateman’s PR guru Ray trying to turn Will Smith’s Travis-Bickle-with-superpowers into your friendly neighbourhood superhero. While it wasn’t groundbreaking, the premise certainly had 90 minutes of entertaining material in it, and would have kept the laughs coming, which, let’s face it, is the reason why people went to see this film.
The turn it takes for the final act – introducing another superhero, and thereby completing ruining the original premise of the film – could have worked if this other superhero was a villain, but unfortunately between the three of them, Vincent Ngo, Vince Gilligan, and Peter Berg could not decide whether Charlize Theron was a supervillain or a superhero, and left her to rot as a cutaway character during the final “battle”. Not that it was much of a battle – a few guys with guns against a man who has pretty much every power in the superhero book is only going to go one way.
As much as the conclusion of this film was a disappointment, the preceding minutes were full of promise. The story was somewhat illogical (why did Hancock bother to be a superhero if he cared as little as he clearly did?), but entertaining nonetheless. The opening set-piece, involving Hancock flying around with a car in his hand, and, later, a bank robbery that Hancock foils in the midst of a hail of gunfire, were both stunningly put together by a director who certainly knows how to shoot action sequences, even if his dedication to anything much more meaningful is less than lacklustre, as anyone who has seen The Kingdom will attest to, I’m sure.
As well as these triumphs of CGI, the interplay and chemistry between Bateman and Smith is almost perfect. These are two of the finest comic actors working today - throw Paul Rudd into the mix and this film would instantly boast the greatest comedy line-up of any recent film – and their interactions are certainly no let-down. Smith on his own delivers some excellent one-liners (“I'll break my foot off in your ass, woman” to a gawping woman in a bar and “Okay. Well, you should sue McDonald's, 'cause they fucked you up.” To an overweight naysayer are my personal favourites), but it is when the two of them come together that they really shine. There isn’t much point listing them for two reasons. One, there are too many to list. And two, it is all about reactions and timing, something which doesn’t easily translate to a written medium.
Not only does Smith handle the comedy well, he also does well with the serious stuff. Although it is somewhat ham-fistedly written, Smith’s ability to control and display emotion brings out the best in some fairly poor dialogue later on in the film, such as the not-quite-classic “I gotta wonder what a kind of a bastard I must have been, that nobody was there to claim me. I mean, I am not the most charming guy in the world, so I've been told, but... nobody?” We knew from his performances in Ali, The Pursuit of Happyness, and the equally film-of-two-halves I Am Legend that he was capable of busting some serious acting chops, but I always find it surprising to see the Fresh Prince breaking out the emotion.
Unfortunately, this film should not have been about emotion. Instead, it should have been about a pissed-off superhero being a pissed-off superhero and pissing off everyone else. If the script had stuck to its initial promise and delivered the redemption story that I, and I assume many others, was hoping for, this could have been a very good film. Instead it is a mediocre film, and will always be remembered, if at all, for how much of a letdown it was after the buzz that originally surrounded it. A massive disappointment, but still, somehow, a decent movie. Short enough to hold the attention of the youngest or oldest viewer, but long enough that you aren’t left wanting more (quite a feat at 88 minutes), this is worth a watch, but don’t get your hopes up too much.
6/10
In amongst a spate of “serious” and “dark” superhero movies of late - The Dark Knight and Watchmen come to mind as primary examples – Hancock must have seemed like a breath of fresh air when the original trailers began showing; a comedy, not a spoof, about a pissed-off superhero who doesn’t care about the public he protects. However, after the initial 40 minutes of comedy antics and stunning set-pieces, the film takes a sharp left-turn that can only be described as inexplicable.
I’m sure that I’m not the only person who was enjoying the entertaining, if simple, plot of Jason Bateman’s PR guru Ray trying to turn Will Smith’s Travis-Bickle-with-superpowers into your friendly neighbourhood superhero. While it wasn’t groundbreaking, the premise certainly had 90 minutes of entertaining material in it, and would have kept the laughs coming, which, let’s face it, is the reason why people went to see this film.
The turn it takes for the final act – introducing another superhero, and thereby completing ruining the original premise of the film – could have worked if this other superhero was a villain, but unfortunately between the three of them, Vincent Ngo, Vince Gilligan, and Peter Berg could not decide whether Charlize Theron was a supervillain or a superhero, and left her to rot as a cutaway character during the final “battle”. Not that it was much of a battle – a few guys with guns against a man who has pretty much every power in the superhero book is only going to go one way.
As much as the conclusion of this film was a disappointment, the preceding minutes were full of promise. The story was somewhat illogical (why did Hancock bother to be a superhero if he cared as little as he clearly did?), but entertaining nonetheless. The opening set-piece, involving Hancock flying around with a car in his hand, and, later, a bank robbery that Hancock foils in the midst of a hail of gunfire, were both stunningly put together by a director who certainly knows how to shoot action sequences, even if his dedication to anything much more meaningful is less than lacklustre, as anyone who has seen The Kingdom will attest to, I’m sure.
As well as these triumphs of CGI, the interplay and chemistry between Bateman and Smith is almost perfect. These are two of the finest comic actors working today - throw Paul Rudd into the mix and this film would instantly boast the greatest comedy line-up of any recent film – and their interactions are certainly no let-down. Smith on his own delivers some excellent one-liners (“I'll break my foot off in your ass, woman” to a gawping woman in a bar and “Okay. Well, you should sue McDonald's, 'cause they fucked you up.” To an overweight naysayer are my personal favourites), but it is when the two of them come together that they really shine. There isn’t much point listing them for two reasons. One, there are too many to list. And two, it is all about reactions and timing, something which doesn’t easily translate to a written medium.
Not only does Smith handle the comedy well, he also does well with the serious stuff. Although it is somewhat ham-fistedly written, Smith’s ability to control and display emotion brings out the best in some fairly poor dialogue later on in the film, such as the not-quite-classic “I gotta wonder what a kind of a bastard I must have been, that nobody was there to claim me. I mean, I am not the most charming guy in the world, so I've been told, but... nobody?” We knew from his performances in Ali, The Pursuit of Happyness, and the equally film-of-two-halves I Am Legend that he was capable of busting some serious acting chops, but I always find it surprising to see the Fresh Prince breaking out the emotion.
Unfortunately, this film should not have been about emotion. Instead, it should have been about a pissed-off superhero being a pissed-off superhero and pissing off everyone else. If the script had stuck to its initial promise and delivered the redemption story that I, and I assume many others, was hoping for, this could have been a very good film. Instead it is a mediocre film, and will always be remembered, if at all, for how much of a letdown it was after the buzz that originally surrounded it. A massive disappointment, but still, somehow, a decent movie. Short enough to hold the attention of the youngest or oldest viewer, but long enough that you aren’t left wanting more (quite a feat at 88 minutes), this is worth a watch, but don’t get your hopes up too much.
6/10
Monday, 23 February 2009
Massive Slack
I'm getting insanely slack at this. I really want to write on here a lot more, I just struggle with what to write about. I guess for now I'll write about things I've watched recently, and the Oscars, as they are unfolding as I type.
So far, a lot of awards have been given, but I haven't seen a lot of the films. Heath Ledger obviously won the Supporting Actor role. I do like The Dark Knight, and he was excellent in it, but it is a shame that no-one else really had a look in.
I just went on a blog fielding a theory that Ledger is not dead and faked his own death in order to gain publicity for the movie. This blog also hypothesised that Ledger would turn up on Oscar night to collect his award with the simple speech "Why so serious?" Of course this did not happen; it was all bollocks, but it did get me thinking. For a second I was considering buying into this theory, but as soon as my conscious snapped back in I saw the light and pulled away from it. This blog also led me to the website of the Westboro Baptist Church. You remember those racist, homophobic, hatemongering, evil bastards from somewhere in America? They were on a Louis Theroux doc once. Anyway, their website is horrifying. Their latest news item was a link to photos of them picketing the trial of the murderers of Matthew Sheppard back in 1999, shouting about how proud they were of their actions. It was quite disgusting.
On a happier note, I re-watched The Green Wing; the Channel 4 comedy series from 2004 through to 2006. I have to say that it is easily one of my favourite British comedy series of all time. For me it's up there with Fawlty Towers and The Office. And in terms of the modern, "all in this gang" type of comedies we seem to be producing, it beats Black Books and Spaced for me. I really think it's genius. The main stars are Tamsin Greig (Black Books), Mark Heap (Spaced), Julian Rhind-Tutt (not much else), and Stephen Mangan (again, not much else), and it chronicles their adventures in a hospital. Not sure if it's ever named.
Wow, Slumdog has won three in a row.
Back to Green Wing; it's a very unique show in terms of it's style. Their is a lot of sped-up action, apparently to cover mistakes and suchlike, and the humour is very British, in that American way of using British to mean sarcastic. I genuinely love this show, it's fantastic, and highly recommended to anyone who likes funny things.
Wow I'm tired. It is 4am to be fair. I want to see the rest of the results at the Oscars. I don't know how long it goes on for though.
So far, a lot of awards have been given, but I haven't seen a lot of the films. Heath Ledger obviously won the Supporting Actor role. I do like The Dark Knight, and he was excellent in it, but it is a shame that no-one else really had a look in.
I just went on a blog fielding a theory that Ledger is not dead and faked his own death in order to gain publicity for the movie. This blog also hypothesised that Ledger would turn up on Oscar night to collect his award with the simple speech "Why so serious?" Of course this did not happen; it was all bollocks, but it did get me thinking. For a second I was considering buying into this theory, but as soon as my conscious snapped back in I saw the light and pulled away from it. This blog also led me to the website of the Westboro Baptist Church. You remember those racist, homophobic, hatemongering, evil bastards from somewhere in America? They were on a Louis Theroux doc once. Anyway, their website is horrifying. Their latest news item was a link to photos of them picketing the trial of the murderers of Matthew Sheppard back in 1999, shouting about how proud they were of their actions. It was quite disgusting.
On a happier note, I re-watched The Green Wing; the Channel 4 comedy series from 2004 through to 2006. I have to say that it is easily one of my favourite British comedy series of all time. For me it's up there with Fawlty Towers and The Office. And in terms of the modern, "all in this gang" type of comedies we seem to be producing, it beats Black Books and Spaced for me. I really think it's genius. The main stars are Tamsin Greig (Black Books), Mark Heap (Spaced), Julian Rhind-Tutt (not much else), and Stephen Mangan (again, not much else), and it chronicles their adventures in a hospital. Not sure if it's ever named.
Wow, Slumdog has won three in a row.
Back to Green Wing; it's a very unique show in terms of it's style. Their is a lot of sped-up action, apparently to cover mistakes and suchlike, and the humour is very British, in that American way of using British to mean sarcastic. I genuinely love this show, it's fantastic, and highly recommended to anyone who likes funny things.
Wow I'm tired. It is 4am to be fair. I want to see the rest of the results at the Oscars. I don't know how long it goes on for though.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Spider-Man 3
OK, I've given up on listing the films I've watched because it was boring. Instead, I'm going to talk about this latest film I've seen, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3.
So I'm a big fan of the first two Spider-Man movies. Apart from the first two X-Men movies and Chris Nolan's two Batman films, I consider Spider-Man 1 and 2 to be the bets comic book movies of the 21st century. Obviously, they are only up against DareDevil, Elektra and Fantastic 4 in this category, but still, my point stands. However, Spider-Man 3 is barely on a par with Fantastic 4 in my eyes, due to a lack of it being good.
First of all, this film starts out with a weedy, poor monologue from Toby Maguire. Now this guy is not a great orator. He's no Morgan Freeman, that's for sure. So anyway, it starts off with this poor monologue, and leading into Peter Parker dicking about with Mary-Jane and being sad because he's not friends with Harry anymore. Not great.
We see Mary-Jane singing (badly) in her Broadway show and then get introduced a the guy from Sideways, who is now a massive beefcake in a stripey top. He then gets turned into a really bad CG-guy by some sand. Meanwhile, Spidey and the Goblin have a fight and Harry gets concussion, allowing them to be friends again.
After this, Peter gets taken over the mystical and unexplained Venom, turning him into a super-confident and weirdly sexual emo guy. Now this is where it gets really shit. By my count, there are four weird musical sections in this film; MJ's Broadway show (relatively acceptable and relevant), Peter dancing down the street pointing at lots of ladies (insanely ridiculous and one of the worst things ever conceived), Harry and MJ dancing in Harry's kitchen (pointless and irritating), and Peter and Gwen dancing to make MJ jealous (reminiscent of Anchorman. Not really necessary in an action film, right?) This adds up to plenty of fat on a not-too-skinny film, and if Sam Raimi had spent a little more time reading his Shit Watchers pamphlets, he might've cut out these sections and made this film a lot better.
And those aren't the only bad bits. The final fight scene is awful. It is very much part of the structure of comic book movies that the film should finish with a fight scene. This particular fight scene is a tag-team match up between the weedy Spider-Man and the powerless yet scientifically-aided Goblin, versus the massive, ridiculously strong, shape-shifting Sandman and the crazy evil, very underdeveloped character of the Venom-ised Eddie Brock.
Call me old-fashioned, but this is not a fair fight. I don't quite know what Venom's powers are, but he seems to be a ruthless, evil version of Spider-Man. The essence of the unfairness of this fight is displayed just before Goblin shows up, when Venom ties Spidey down, allowing Sandman to pummel him with one massive, arachno-man sized fist.
When the Goblin shows up, he helps out a fair amount; he blows up part of Sandman's head, allowing Spidey to get back to his feet, and then gets his arse kicked by Venom for long enough for Spidey to figure out how to defeat the alien goo-man. Now, herein lies the problem of this final fight (as if the total imbalance of the two 'teams' wasn't enough); the final defeat of the villains. In Spider-Man, Green Goblin got impaled by his own glider - pretty cool; in Spider-Man 2, Doc Ock gets drowned and blown up. In Spider-Man 3, Spider-Man lets one go and kills the other with music. Yep. He forgives Sandman/Flint for killing his uncle and lets him fuck off in his inimitable sandy fashion, and then plays music to defeat Venom. Granted, he then blows him (and Eddie Brock) up, but it's a shit explosion. Meanwhile, Harry is dying.
So all in all, Spider-Man 3 is not a particularly good film, with the negatives far outweighing the positives. Here it goes in a pros and cons sort of breakdown:
Pros:
I read an interview with James Franco the other day, where he was saying that although he auditioned for the part of Peter Parker, he was glad that they chose Maguire and that he was a perfect cast for Spider-Man. Now I know that Parker is supposed to be a geeky little bitch with no backbone, but Tobey Maguire is quite simply not a good actor. Franco would have been a far better choice. Admittedly it wouldn't affect the quality of this latest instalment, where the problems should have been apparent from the scripting stage, but it might've made it ever so slightly more watchable.
Anyway, I feel compelled to give films a rating, and I give it 6/10. This may seem high, given the fairly voluminous criticism I have just levelled at the film, so I feel the need to justify this. Firstly, JK Simmons is immense as J Jonah Jameson, editor of the Daily Bugle. He is an excellent character actor, and should be in more things. Secondly, the subplot of Harry Osborn getting Peter and MJ to break is excellent, despite being carried solely on the shoulders of James Franco, who hits some superb comedic beats in the process. Next, there is an excellent comedy sequence, involving Bruce Campbell as a French maitre d' with excellent comic mistiming. Sadly, this is the best scene in the entire film. Also, it's hopefully going to be the last, seeing as how the trilogy seems to be the 'in' thing to do in films. At least until around 2020, when it will be brought back, with the same guy as the main hero, having had a fairly poor career since, and creating a film that everyone will be excited about, until it comes out and sucks, because Spider-Man used a car to kill a helicopter, or something along those lines.
So there you go, my review of Spider-Man 3. Only a year late, but whatever. Don't waste your time.
So I'm a big fan of the first two Spider-Man movies. Apart from the first two X-Men movies and Chris Nolan's two Batman films, I consider Spider-Man 1 and 2 to be the bets comic book movies of the 21st century. Obviously, they are only up against DareDevil, Elektra and Fantastic 4 in this category, but still, my point stands. However, Spider-Man 3 is barely on a par with Fantastic 4 in my eyes, due to a lack of it being good.
First of all, this film starts out with a weedy, poor monologue from Toby Maguire. Now this guy is not a great orator. He's no Morgan Freeman, that's for sure. So anyway, it starts off with this poor monologue, and leading into Peter Parker dicking about with Mary-Jane and being sad because he's not friends with Harry anymore. Not great.
We see Mary-Jane singing (badly) in her Broadway show and then get introduced a the guy from Sideways, who is now a massive beefcake in a stripey top. He then gets turned into a really bad CG-guy by some sand. Meanwhile, Spidey and the Goblin have a fight and Harry gets concussion, allowing them to be friends again.
After this, Peter gets taken over the mystical and unexplained Venom, turning him into a super-confident and weirdly sexual emo guy. Now this is where it gets really shit. By my count, there are four weird musical sections in this film; MJ's Broadway show (relatively acceptable and relevant), Peter dancing down the street pointing at lots of ladies (insanely ridiculous and one of the worst things ever conceived), Harry and MJ dancing in Harry's kitchen (pointless and irritating), and Peter and Gwen dancing to make MJ jealous (reminiscent of Anchorman. Not really necessary in an action film, right?) This adds up to plenty of fat on a not-too-skinny film, and if Sam Raimi had spent a little more time reading his Shit Watchers pamphlets, he might've cut out these sections and made this film a lot better.
And those aren't the only bad bits. The final fight scene is awful. It is very much part of the structure of comic book movies that the film should finish with a fight scene. This particular fight scene is a tag-team match up between the weedy Spider-Man and the powerless yet scientifically-aided Goblin, versus the massive, ridiculously strong, shape-shifting Sandman and the crazy evil, very underdeveloped character of the Venom-ised Eddie Brock.
Call me old-fashioned, but this is not a fair fight. I don't quite know what Venom's powers are, but he seems to be a ruthless, evil version of Spider-Man. The essence of the unfairness of this fight is displayed just before Goblin shows up, when Venom ties Spidey down, allowing Sandman to pummel him with one massive, arachno-man sized fist.
When the Goblin shows up, he helps out a fair amount; he blows up part of Sandman's head, allowing Spidey to get back to his feet, and then gets his arse kicked by Venom for long enough for Spidey to figure out how to defeat the alien goo-man. Now, herein lies the problem of this final fight (as if the total imbalance of the two 'teams' wasn't enough); the final defeat of the villains. In Spider-Man, Green Goblin got impaled by his own glider - pretty cool; in Spider-Man 2, Doc Ock gets drowned and blown up. In Spider-Man 3, Spider-Man lets one go and kills the other with music. Yep. He forgives Sandman/Flint for killing his uncle and lets him fuck off in his inimitable sandy fashion, and then plays music to defeat Venom. Granted, he then blows him (and Eddie Brock) up, but it's a shit explosion. Meanwhile, Harry is dying.
So all in all, Spider-Man 3 is not a particularly good film, with the negatives far outweighing the positives. Here it goes in a pros and cons sort of breakdown:
Pros:
- It's Spider-Man
- James Franco is excellent as Harry Osborn
- Decent fight scene between Spider-Man and the Goblin
- JK Simmons
- Tobey Maguire is not a superhero, even a weedy little bitch like Spider-Man
- Kirsten Dunst and Bryce Dallas Howard, while being fairly easy on the eye, are two of the dullest actresses about
- Crap villains
- Crap CG - it looks like early PS2-standard graphics
- Crap final fight
- Stupid musical sequences
- Far too long (2 hours 13 minutes)
I read an interview with James Franco the other day, where he was saying that although he auditioned for the part of Peter Parker, he was glad that they chose Maguire and that he was a perfect cast for Spider-Man. Now I know that Parker is supposed to be a geeky little bitch with no backbone, but Tobey Maguire is quite simply not a good actor. Franco would have been a far better choice. Admittedly it wouldn't affect the quality of this latest instalment, where the problems should have been apparent from the scripting stage, but it might've made it ever so slightly more watchable.
Anyway, I feel compelled to give films a rating, and I give it 6/10. This may seem high, given the fairly voluminous criticism I have just levelled at the film, so I feel the need to justify this. Firstly, JK Simmons is immense as J Jonah Jameson, editor of the Daily Bugle. He is an excellent character actor, and should be in more things. Secondly, the subplot of Harry Osborn getting Peter and MJ to break is excellent, despite being carried solely on the shoulders of James Franco, who hits some superb comedic beats in the process. Next, there is an excellent comedy sequence, involving Bruce Campbell as a French maitre d' with excellent comic mistiming. Sadly, this is the best scene in the entire film. Also, it's hopefully going to be the last, seeing as how the trilogy seems to be the 'in' thing to do in films. At least until around 2020, when it will be brought back, with the same guy as the main hero, having had a fairly poor career since, and creating a film that everyone will be excited about, until it comes out and sucks, because Spider-Man used a car to kill a helicopter, or something along those lines.
So there you go, my review of Spider-Man 3. Only a year late, but whatever. Don't waste your time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)