Film Review: The Guard
If The Inbetweeners Movie has failed to peak your interest in the past week, then you still have ample opportunity to seek out The Guard, whilst not perfect (what is?) it certainly provides a healthy alternative to the teen centric, 90 minute fart joke we had the displeasure of seeing (except for the dopey audience who scored it a £21 million opening at the UK Box Office). Anyway, it would be easy to brand this Irish comedy offering as simply Observe and Report via Local Hero; a deluded beat cop (Brendan Gleeson) on a tiny Irish isle (presumably not too far from Craggy Island, obligatory Father Ted reference ends) is paired with an FBI special agent (Don Cheadle, also sharing a producing credit) in a case involving the hippest drug cartel in modern British cinema (Liam Cunningham and Mark Strong running the show). Luckily though The Guard offers a competent black comedy that’s easily above most of the so called comedy crud we’ve endured this year.
The film is undeniably funny, often hilarious. Ok, certainly measuring this film’s merits over that of The Inbetweeners Movie is like comparing Oscar Wilde to Nicolas Sparks or perhaps symptomatic of desperation in the face of incessant mediocrity. Well, it’s a useful hypocrisy and worth employing in this case, primarily because it allows comparison of common faults. The common fault in question is the ratio between laughs and running time, an uphill battle that most comedies struggle to maintain. Inbetweeners lasted a good 15-20 minutes before burning out due to one note gags, The Guard at least makes up for final act laugh deficiency by attempting to balance out the laughs with some pathos, while this is admirable it feels unsatisfying as we’d rather be laughing. A more appropriate analysis is the fact that the majority of comedies use all their best gags in their first few minutes, and as a result it can only go downhill, thus the films typically shift into lower gear (e.g. ‘emotional’ material) to counter the adrenal crash. Sadly though it’s a do or die deal in movies to suck the audience in the opening moments, a given fact but in the case of comedy it is a thankless one. Now that isn’t to rule out a comedy that successfully diverts into melancholy, the likes of Annie Hall and In Bruges (the director of this film is Bruges director’s brother) establish this fact. The problem is the fact that the premise of The Guard is a retread of the sad-sack cop comedy we’ve seen too often, and prolifically recently (Paul Blart and imitators acknowledged). A worse burden is the baggage that comes with all the tropes of that plot, the ailing mother, drug addiction and unsavoury bad cop antics all show up here, and without much by the way of irony.
In the film’s favour it certainly is a wisely cast film, in particular when we consider Brendan Gleeson as the unprincipled and unapologetically coarse Gerry Boyle. Gleeson is always likeable as the titular guard (or Guarda if you consider the Gaelic locale in the film) and his unrelenting political incorrectness only makes him more endearing. He’s a simple character with uncomplicated motives and naturally faced with an increasingly complicated case, a perfect comic situation. It’s a shame then that the setting is so cliché, but in fairness the movie does counter the generic premise with enough acidity in the laughs to justify the endeavour.
Overdue #5 Conan the Barbarian (1982)
Unless you live in the USA at the time of this review going to ‘print’ (we’re online, who’da thunk?) the likelihood is quite high that you have yet to the see Marcus Nispel’s (ultra hack) new interpretation of Robert E. Howard’s high fantasy hunk. But naturally Howard’s name is not the first that comes to mind in relation to the character (as opposed to Edgar Rice Burroughs in relation to Tarzan), thus we come to the most recognised incarnation of the Barbarian as directed by renowned cinema scribe John Milius (writer of Apocalypse Now, Magnum Force and director of Big Wednesday) and starring none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It would be easy to let nostalgia dominate consensus but at least nostalgia is a staple of some quality inherent in the piece. The quality in this case is mostly in the setting and the spirit of the piece, Milius’s film certainly doesn’t mince word in relation to its medieval setting. This is a world where strength and ‘honour’ is found in steel, where enemies are crushed without hesitation and scantly clad women are offered to our hero as he becomes ‘of pure stock’. Such a non-judgemental tone will probably be absent in the new Jason Mamoa starring version, although this is inherent in the charm of Conan, after all he’s not Conan the Noble. The movie is at its most effective as a story of few words, the most memorable of which are in the first act, chronicling the massacre of Conan’s villiage, the murder of his parents and his endurance of slavery. Making for one vengeful Barbarian.
Conan was certainly a significant movie for Schwarzenegger as it marked his first lead role in a major commercial production, although it can be safely be said that it would be until Arnie had his name above the titles of Commando and Predator before we’d really get a sense of his charisma. Whilst offering a solid performance as Conan, he is never anything above that. True, it is a given fact that analysing Schwarzenegger’s performance in such a film as this is an unrewarding task, but in contrast to his supporting cast he may very well have been the best thing in it. Conan’s sidekick and love interest (Gerry Lopez and Sandhal Bergman) unimpress to the point of narcolepsy, even trusted screen thesps Max Von Sydow and Mako are left with very little to offer. More frustrating is the villain of the piece, the cult leader Thulsa Doom played by none other than James Earl Jones. Jones at least is somewhat unnerving as the hypnotic manipulator; the problem is he’s up against Arnold Schwarzenegger. This wouldn’t be an issue if that dichotomy were drawn in a clearer divide between brawn and brains, but Jones only sporadically appears in the film and any real conflict never seems to ignite, he’s never any physical threat. In a film which is fundamentally a revenge story this is a glaring oversight, muddled more so when a rescue mission is thrown into the mix.
All in all the film establishes a thrilling introduction to Conan, but sadly it also paves the way toward a routine revenge plot. The outcome of said vengeance of course shadows Conan’s revenge in doubt, maybe violence begets violence after all. It would have been more interesting if the film had stuck to its guns and kept to its archaic tone and attitude, at least then it would have been consistent. However, nostalgia it seems comes to the fore once again; we can only watch the film in context of Arnie’s screen credentials over the past thirty years. Still, there’s always the Terminator.
Conan the Barbarian is available on DVD and Blu-Ray from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment.
Film Review: The Smurfs (2011)
Note: – The rating for this film is based on the genre ‘Family’ and taken other family films into consideration.
The Smurfs are lovable little creatures. Blue; live in mushrooms and pretty much 99 children of one Smurf…known as Papa. Obviously people know this since The Smurfs are one of the oldest children’s TV shows. I remember watching the cartoon but I do not remember a lot of it. One thing that does stick out is the names that they all got. They are named after their main trait such as Clumsy. The film does just that, keeping all the original elements clean.
You can tell instantly that this film won’t change the world. It’s a family film and it is ok for mistakes. But it does need to tick the boxes for a family film. It needs to make sure that not only does it entertain children but also grown ups, as they will be watching with their kids and may be long-term fans of the show. The film does just that. It gives out solid laugh for everyone watching.
We have the evil Gargamel bent on capturing the Smurfs and then extracting their essence to become the most powerful wizard. However his plans go wrong as the Smurfs manage to run away with a few of them falling into a portal leading them to New York. It is here that they encounter Patrick and Grace Winslow and stay with them until the next ‘Blue Moon’. Gargamel has then managed to get through the portal with his weird, yet funny cat. The Smurfs then try to get back to their homeland whiles trying to keep away from Gargamel along the way.
When looking at the special effects and computer graphics, it’s clear to see that the Smurfs seem a little out of place, as does the cat does when it does something a little abnormal to what cats would usually do. The cat’s scenes are the most obvious as it stands completely out of place giving that annoying feeling that they should have fixed that. However seeing that this is a family film, these can be pushed aside.
We have Jonathan Winters (Papa), Alan Cumming (Gutsy), Katy Perry (Smurfette), Fred Armisen (Brainy), George Lopez (Grouchy) and Anton Yelchin (Clumsy) as the main Smurfs group that arrives at New York. It would seem that the makers of the film wanted to bring in things that the younger audience may associate with, such as when Smurfette suggests ‘I Kissed a Smurf and I Liked It?’ you can clearly see that this is a reference to Katy Perry’s ‘I Kissed a Girl’. There are other references within the film, but most are not as obvious as the one shown.
Overall, this is a fun family film for all to enjoy and would be one for the children to remember in the future. It is not a film that one would put highly on their list nor applaud for an outstanding film. It is generally one to enjoy.
Film Review: The Inbetweeners Movie
Us ‘Brits’ love to eulogize our film output, but our cinematic death knell is without a modicum of doubt the sex comedy. Play With Me, Sex Lives of the Potato Men, Fat Slags, Kevin and Perry Go Large and just about every Carry On film have continually pounded Britain’s credibility in the genre further and further into oblivion than even metaphysically possible. Worse however is the fact that we try too hard, oblivious to the fact that our overseas identity would be better off maintaining our stereotypically prudish image as opposed to our embarrassing attempts at building farce out of fornication. The further misadventures of E4 sitcom teen hellraisers Will, Jay, Neil and Simon don’t attempt to correct this imbalance, but in its favour it does raise some laughs, for the first twenty minutes.
Then it’s back to the depths of Brit-sex-com hell.
Scatological gags wear out quickly which is intensely problematic if you are hellbent on using them constantly within ninety minutes, as one of PS2’s launch titles brilliantly put it “same trick is only half the points!” By the end of the film, one last poo joke is only 1/36th of how funny it was the first time.
The characters are thinly drawn geeks, including Will the tubby bespectacled one, Jay the horny one, Simon the dumb one who just got dumped and Neil the really dumb one. None of them are particularly distinguishable beyond their crusade for ‘tha pussay’, they and the side characters that populate the proceedings are consistently vulgar and idiotic and for most of the film there is nothing neutral to counter them until the girls show up. Naturally the objects of their lust are not only as two-dimensional as they are, but they may just be the only sympathetic characters in the whole misguided shebang and a male centric comedy like this isn’t about to consider them as anything other than inflatable dolls, sadly they are written with about as much emotional depth. The Inbetweeners themselves are comic caricatures without moderation, they behave in extremes all of the time despite the fact that we NEED moments of subtlety to appreciate the crudity.
The movie is as crude and as crass as you’d expect, but you will be surprised by how boring and repetitive the proceedings become. Characters continue to say and do overtly stupid things, once may be funny but by the time Neil has crapped in a footbath for no good reason you’re patience will have withered entirely. The worst thing about this film however is just how irrelevant it is, it has no aspirations above being as disposable and tacky as the glow sticks they dish out in nightclubs. Like Red Bull in film form; the initial kick will up your spirits, but the downward spiral into lethargic saturation and self loathing will quickly become intolerable. Avoid.
Overdue #4 Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972).
It was no real surprise when the working title of the newest edition in the Apes legacy was simply ‘Caesar’, it struck recognition with fans of the series but more importantly that recognition outlined the premise of the new film in a single word: revolution. Caesar being the son of the future apes Cornelius and Zira, and crucially an instrumental figure in an ape uprising as well as the creation of what becomes the ape culture (predating even the wisest of all apes, The Lawgiver!).
As discussed in this critic’s review of the recent film, revolution was something that Rise of the Planet of the Apes didn’t particularly deliver on beyond a routine rampage. Fundamentally though the film lacked a real reason or scenario for there to be a revolt or insurrection of any kind, yes there was the issue of animal cruelty but this trivialised the apes’ plight rather than enhanced it. Also consider the setting, Rise took place in what is more or less the contemporary world, there is no real (overt) dogmatic oppression that needs to be overthrown. All in all, Rise’s ‘revolution’ has no sense of urgency or crucially, gravitas.
Conquest on the other hand only just gets by as a solid film, it’s riddled with flaws ranging from uneven pacing, blunt social commentary and an linear plot that begs for at least one revelation to break up the proceedings. The film’s ace however is indeed the Conquest itself, unlike Rise, this film is set in the dystopic future of 1991 (I’m above snide post-modern blurbs) in which apes have been forced into slave labour (something about the mysterious cosmic extinction of cats and dogs) for a decidedly cosmopolitan-meets-Bauhaus fascist state. Apes are required to run errands, mop floors and even shine shoes (did I mention social commentary?) for their human masters. The film’s scope is surprising considering its pitiful budget. The $1.7 million price tag, dirt cheap even by the standards of the time, is evident in many of the ape make-ups in background characters and the noticeable reuse of key locations. Filmed mostly in Century City CA (on newly developed sites built by Fox) in a handheld vérité style that not only separates the film from the other the Apes endeavours but grounds the film in an unnerving reality.
The setting is what ultimately grounds and gives the revolution a purpose, these apes HAVE a reason to revolt. The human presence, whilst mostly unsympathetic is tempered by two compassionate faces, namely Ricardo Montalban and in particular Hari Rhodes as conscientious human stooge MacDonald. The ever charming Montalban is a victim and catalyst in the story as Caesar’s human father figure Armando, ironically it is his demise which ultimately sends Caesar on the warpath (the death of a human inspires an ape to otherthrow mankind). MacDonald on the other hand is poised as the voice of reason in reaction to Caesar’s actions, in particular regarding the controversial finale of the piece in which Caesar stirs his troops into a blood frenzy at the mercy of the now captured human overlords, readying them for the final coup de grace-although that depends on which version we’re talking about.
Originally, Caesar allows the ape mob to brutally kill the human masters as the city burns around them. However Fox got cold feet after a series of disastrous test screenings, concerning the film’s often extreme violence, and ordered the creation of a new, more positive conclusion to the story. The ending you are likely to see is one in which Caesar has a change of heart, recognises MacDonald’s words (as well as the utterance of ‘no’ by previously mute chimp Lisa, played by Apes regular Natalie Trundy) and orders the apes to stand down, preaching compassion in the domination of man.
Which is the better ending? Depends on which movie you want to see.
The revised ending does provide a much more moral conclusion to an otherwise bleak (maybe even amoral) experience, the problem is that the execution itself is a mish-mash of reversed footage, extreme close ups that are clearly the result of post-production tweaking and lip-synching issues regarding Roddy MacDowall’s re-written ADR (additional dialogue replacement) and fundamentally lacks conviction as it registers in sharp contrast to Caesar’s predominantly nihilistic motives. The original ending maintains the dark pessimism of the film’s atmosphere and the ultimate doom of mankind, but once again it is an uncomfortably nasty conclusion in what was, until then, a famously family friendly franchise. It is a question of perspective though, and certainly an uneasy one.
Incidentally the ethically stirring ending is symptomatic of the film itself, neither version will satisfy you fully but you will certainly admire it for its convictions and as ape revolutions go, there is no real equal.
Conquest of the Planet of the Apes is available from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment on DVD and on Blu-Ray as part of the Planet of the Apes Blu-Ray Boxset.
Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
During the filming of The Lord of the Rings trilogy Andy Serkis was known to have remarked that after a day of giving his all as Gollum (whilst trussed up in an unflattering body stocking), he’d return to his trailer and realise that he wasn’t going to be onscreen. Well after King Kong, Captain Haddock (in Tintin this Christmas) and now Caesar to his name, his ego bruising experience on The Two Towers has certainly paid off. Arguably Serkis’ name is the one that should be headlining this film, because it ain’t James Franco that is pulling in the punters (sorry James) and that’s just name recognition we’re talking about. Serkis, for all intensive purposes could be called the Lon Chaney for the digital era but in the case of this film, it’s only the beginning of the problem.
Caesar the ape, played here by Serkis in motion capture courtesy of Weta Digital (as opposed to Roddy McDowall under John Chambers’ latex appliances) is apparently a real chimpanzee given a mind-enhancing drug (created to cure Altziemers) which enables a rapid change in his cognitive abilities from basic chimp antics to being able to solve puzzles designed for eight year olds, at the age of three. The problem though is we never accept Caesar and his ape co-stars AS apes, just performers pretending to BE apes. This curiously has been a problem since the last attempt to revise Planet of the Apes (the ‘reboot’ under Tim Burton), not because of the methods used but because of the apes themselves. Originally they were intelligent apes that acted like humans, Burton’s film unadvisedly had its simians converse and yet lope and leap like normal apes. Here the apes are simply apes; the illusion is scarcely maintained in CGI. Using motion capture to record human actions onto apes is a problem as they are not the actions of apes but humans, so we are always aware of the human element (crucially not the ape element). Dr Zaius in the original film commented “to suggest we can learn anything of the simian nature from a study of man is sheer nonsense”, ironically that is true here. For all of its adherence to biological fact, what we are watching is nothing more or less than anthropomorphism.
The decision to forgo makeup does carry the feeling of an industrial verdict; ‘CGI is the future therefore advance it’. The result lacks physical presence and comes off as a simulation; the quality veers back and forth between excellent and rubbery. Interestingly, the apes in this film are at their most impressive in close ups, anything else tends to become less convincing. Additionally the direction of some of the animation is questionable at times: does Caesar really need to swing around the house like Spiderman? This is substantially damaging when the apes do things so extreme at times that it is nigh impossible to suddenly shift from a premise reworked to fit in a hypothetical ‘reality’ to demanding we suspend disbelief. A chimp may be five times stronger than a human, but it is highly doubtful that one could leap through several plate glass windows without so much as a scratch.
The set up of the original film was brilliantly simple: Charlton Heston is the only intelligent human on a planet ruled by super intelligent apes. And within that simple premise, the film exploited just about every social issue that ran rife during the sixties (racial segregation, civil rights, religious dogma etc) and even today is debated as a social Rorschach blot, covering everything from rationalism to Marxism. Rise of the Planet of the Apes on the other hand, is a complex science fiction idea attempting to set up a simple premise (a supposed cure for Alzheimer’s is tested on a chimp… blah blah blah – and then he escapes) worse still, like Burton’s film before it, it is a conceptually empty piece of work, unless you consider the injustice of animal cruelty an extensive talking point (for five minutes). This is also a problem in how we perceive the apes themselves, Caesar and his ape brethren obtain the ability to think, problem solve and communicate (maybe even talk), yet the best they can do with their newfound intellect is run amok in San Francisco.
Much like Burton’s misfire, the film is doomed to fill its blockbuster quota of thoughtless action sequences. Yes, the original Apes film had action but it was never the focus, the focus was in the novelty of watching a council of orang-utans debating whether or not Taylor (Heston) was indeed as smart as them. Rise however is simply another in the long line of sci-fi spectacles that exist on the premise that we want to see robots, aliens or in this case apes blow things up (even Inception is by default an action picture). Like I Robot before it, the subject matter of its premise is used as padding for by-the-numbers action. A precursor to Apes has been done before (the series has a cyclical narrative, owing to time travel elements) and has covered much more intriguing ground, including the creation of the Ape culture. The story here barely even gives any impression of greater things to come, this isn’t so much of a ‘revolution’ as a baby step toward the notion of what may be a revolution.
Rise boils down its premise to an outbreak, no different than any zombie apocalypse. The fatal flaw of this film is that it presumes the novelty of the series has been in how the apes came into power, the truth is that the novelty was in the fact that the apes were IN power. As a result the movie is never as chilling, exciting or as disquieting as it needs to be.
Overdue #3 E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982).
A review for a classic movie often writes itself and with a film as fondly remembered as E.T, it’s easy to cover old ground. Luckily in the case of this particular gem in Spielberg’s catalogue we have Super 8 to compare, J.J. Abrams has cited E.T. among other Spielberg classics from the late 70’s and 80’s, Super 8 itself is considered an ‘homage’ to Spielberg’s work from that period (incidentally executive produced by Spielberg, we won’t judge though). But Super 8 spends only spends so much time in demonstrating its devotion to those movies, Abrams falls prey to his own cinematic fixations (obnoxious lens flares, generic conspiracy sub-plots and worryingly dull creature design by Neville Page) and his obligation to the requirements of contemporary science fiction cinema e.g. aliens equal action.
Super 8 as a result could never match the wonder of Close Encounters, or more importantly the atmosphere of E.T. and it’s these shortcomings that only outline Abrams’s reverence as a box ticking exercise (divorced single parent? Check! Childhood angst? Check! Etc).
The key to E.T. success should be obvious by now, it didn’t need to be reverential (yes there are nods to Star Wars, but they are incidental) in order to delight the audiences that ensured its yearlong cinematic run. Tonally it doesn’t make any concessions to its potentially camp or goofy premise, instead Spielberg plays it straight; real kids in a real family. Throughout the film is a palpable sense of threat and danger, besides the faceless adults with flashlights and keys (the implication of cages) lurking through the neighbourhood, even domesticity itself is wrought with dread and melancholy. It would be a mistake to call E.T. a ‘feelgood’ experience regardless of its child oriented charms. The last third of the film shifts into nightmarish science fiction as Elliot’s home is transformed into a plastic sheathed lab by Peter Coyote’s sinister government agents, but the impact of these unsettling scenes is felt long before. John Williams score maintains a sense of eerie foreboding for the majority of the proceedings, so much so that it is only at the film’s climax that we feel genuinely uplifted, albeit in sombre circumstances.
The greatest success of E.T. is in its story of emotional transition and this is not simply due to Elliot’s family’s dysfunctional backstory (the father abandoned them to be with his mistress, in Mexico), but importantly it chronicles children ultimately finding joy from extraordinary circumstances. The most crucial point here though is that we know sadness before we feel happiness, thus the catharsis in E.T’s case has a greater impact. The real retrospective discussion in this case is Super 8’s emotional emptiness, Abrams simply shoehorns in a dysfunctional family into a flesh-eating monster movie and his attempts to link the two are hackneyed and often irrelevant. E.T. maintains emotional relevance (and resonance) between its human and alien subject matter. As a character, E.T’s motives are as simple as Elliot’s, both are lonely and sad and so the story see’s them helping each other. Super 8’s alien is just a rampaging monster until we’re told otherwise; therefore there is no emotional catharsis.
E.T. will stand the test of time because of not only its heart, but (and I’m in danger of sounding pretentious here) because of its genuine emotional journey.
Review: Arrietty
It’s not advisable to place your faith in actors, directors or even studios (e.g. auteur theory), not simply because it’s biased but it raises an extremely important point: With so much devotion to a single artist, how can you expect to conjure any kind of discerning conclusion?
Studio Ghibli’s near-squeaky clean critical track record (with exception to the dreary Ocean Waves) can inspire confidence and doubt in equal measure, blurring the line between balanced opinion and hyperbole. Ghibli’s output is certainly the most agreeable of any animation studio’s fare, beautifully animated and adequately family friendly. It could be said that its films are perhaps too morally conscientious; Hayao Miyazaki uses his films to put forward his progressive agenda, at times waylaying narrative cohesion.
Arrietty for the most part is a very enjoyable, gentle and surprisingly dynamic film. Visually this is recognisably Ghibli but the audio is where the film refreshingly diverges from the usual form, first time composer Cécile Corbel marks an energizing change from (the admittedly superb) Joe Hisaishi with an upbeat Celtic inspired score. The sound design may just be some of Ghibli’s best yet, we feel as small as the Borrowers themselves as we are immersed by a gigantic and yet instantly familiar audio world. The rustle of a sleeve on human scale registers as small earthquake on borrower scale.
The story itself will be familiar to many westerners having previously been adapted by the BBC and the subject of a dire adaptation starring John Goodman, Arrietty may be relocated to the outskirts of a Tokyo suburb but most of the original elements from Mary Norton’s source are intact. The film keeps in Ghibli tradition by focusing on the joy of everyday rituals (preparing dinner, doing laundry) with a unique slant, one scene in particular see’s Arrietty grinding up oversized biscuits with a mortar and pestle. Thus amplifying the sadness we feel when events take a turn for the worst, as the Clock family (the Borrowers in question) find themselves forced from their home. Arrietty is charmingly realised as an inquisitive yet timid presence, resourceful enough to adopt a sewing pin as a sword and vulnerable enough that we care for her safety whilst trusting her as a heroine.
It’s not surprising however that it is the ‘human beans’ themselves that are the least interesting players in the story, even Sho (who befriends Arrietty) is nothing more than a doe-eyed angel, sympathetic though he may be, his naïve outlook leaves a lot to be desired. Frustratingly the film even seems to hint at a romance (given the circumstances, without a doubt platonic) between Sho and Arrietty and the fact that this, or even any scenes of them spending time together aren’t embellished is disappointing. More than anything we want to see this friendship grow and we want to see these two introduce each other to their own separate worlds, or even engage in routine activities (much like Elliot and E.T eavesdropping on Dee Wallace reading Peter Pan). Furthermore, the morality of the ‘Borrower’ ethos isn’t necessarily resolved; ‘we only take what you won’t miss’, yeah, that’s still stealing.
Most of the issues in the film don’t take away from the experience, that’s what counts in the end. Arrietty has its flaws but its charms more than make up for them, coupled with the best auditory experience of any Ghibli movie, this is a treat for all ages.
The English Subtitled version was reviewed.
Review: Super 8
So we have J. J. Abrams, the director of Cloverfield and Steven Spielberg, who we know is very fond with aliens and everything that’s comes from outer space. These two together seems like a good match up, but compared to Cloverfield and Spielberg’s previous triumphs, how does this film fare?
In summary this films is about a group of kids in the year 1979, creating a film for a local contest, which then goes horribly wrong when they witness a train crash, which sends the town spiraling as more mis-happens occur within the town. Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) plays the main character in this feature, who has just lost his mother and then shows us what happens four months after.
This film felt like it brought back the 80’s. It didn’t have any of that suspense that you would usually get within sci-fi films and it feels like it literally came from that era. On the other hand when we see the ‘alien’ and it’s ‘spaceship’ you then realize that this is a film from this generation, which can be a good thing I suppose. It kept true to the aspect of coming from ’79, with the kids filming with old and odd cameras, which took film and not digital like now a days. Considering that there is a scene where the shop assistant was also playing music out of a Walkman, also helps secure that safe haven of the film staying true to the era that it was trying to belong.
The acting itself was good. Mainly due to a cast of children, they have done really well. There are a few places where the adults, such as Jackson Lamb (Kyle Chandler) and Louis Dainard (Ron Eldard) who outshine most of the others, since they are also in the running of supporting cast. Riley Griffiths’ character, Charles, was one that was seen to be the bossy type, who wanted his things his way and would always try to shows authority. His constant use of the word ‘shit’ also determines that he has a very low vocabulary and does not have a better way to describe the situation. Either way you blame him if there was a load of mis happens going on in your town. Not many other characters stand out. There are too many of the ‘Air Force’ to stand one out, apart from the Major, but aside from that there are constantly soldiers from that area around the place.
You do not get much of a backstory about this ‘Alien’, who only wants to get home and is, considerably hungry. However the air force don’t want to let it go and give the ‘Alien’ the impression that all humans are evil. However, humans can understand all of its thoughts when it picks them up, through some use of telepathy.
When looking at this movie and back at ‘Cloverfield’, it makes me wonder why J.J. Abrams has gone to do a film, which is not as anticipated but yet more family friendly. Of course the film has been given the ‘12A’ certificate, which is just right, but there are the elements where we all know that families would enjoy this film. When looking at this from a Spielberg point of view, it feels like that this film would fit into the categories of his 80’s film E.T. The presence of the alien and then that creature wanting to go home, it’s nothing new, but since we haven’t had a film like this in a while, I suppose it’s a good time to get one out and re-live the classics such as E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
According to J.J. Abrams however this film was homage to the films Spielberg created in the 80’s, with the previous two being examples and with the addition of ‘The Goonies’. When you look at it that way, you can see the resemblance.
So in summary, this film has nothing new to really offer the audience, but considering the time zone, the acting and the storyline put together, it does feel like they have brought back an era, which many people we know may miss. J. J. Abrams has achieved on a different level, but it does feel like there is no originality where this film was heading. However this film had a very solid storyline and kept you going. I admit it left me confused for a while until I realized what this ‘Alien’ was doing. It had excellent performances from the younger cast especially and it had that Steven Spielberg feel to the film, as all his films originally did during the 70’s and 80’s.
All in all this film was entertaining, offered nothing new, but it does re-visit and helps keep the ideas of aliens alive.
Overdue #2: Cowboy Bebop: The Movie (2001)
Don’t you just hate redundancy? Those days of counting the seconds, minutes and hours until your next interview? Well, the crew of the spaceship Bebop feel your pain, a quartet of misfit bounty hunters looking for the next hit. They hit the jackpot after arriving on the human colony on Mars in the year 2071, when a mysterious explosion snaps the crew back into action. The bounty in question is on the head of the enigmatic bomber Vincent and his hacker sidekick and the reward just capped at 300 million Wulongs (the currency of the moment). More than enough to get Spike off the instant noodles.
It’s a shame then that the film itself couldn’t be as exciting as that paragraph, indeed the biggest flaw in the entire enterprise is twofold: The lack of urgency and the lack of consequence. Neither is improved by the lack of empathy between the crew themselves, as quirky as they may be none of them seem to care about each other, most of them even lament the fact that they don’t even notice when one of them has been kidnapped. One can guess that this was meant to be endearing or melancholic, but it backfires drastically in just how dramatically moribund it is. When they don’t care we don’t care, period. The mission feels arbitrary and it pretty much is, we never even get any sense of any competition from other bounty hunters (I mean, it’s only 300 million Wulongs after all, no biggie). The plot thickens as the crew’s investigation reveals a plot to release poison gas upon the Martian city, but there’s no real urgency or motive to stop Vincent besides the reward. These characters have no affection for the world (or universe even) that they inhabit.
Remarkably the tone of the film itself is particularly blasé in the face of potential bio-terrorism, murder and supposed inner-turmoil. We’re supposed to believe that our hero Spike Spiegel is a tormented soul hiding behind a veil of dashing bravado, but all we can think is how duplicitous this is. If we’re to believe that he has this depth then we need to see shades of it during his heroic moments, lurching from ‘I’m smug’ to ‘I’m sad’ doesn’t illustrate anything beyond haphazard writing. Even the dastardly plan of the antagonist Vincent is based on flimsy cod-philosophy, more insultingly however is the fact that the film thinks that his delusions are profound, so much so that a post-credits title card asks “Are you living in the real world?” Cos’ it’s philosophical, ya’see?
Vincent’s generic ‘Rasputin in a trench coat’ design doesn’t help either.
The look of the world is impressive but offers little that we haven’t seen done better (Akira, Rintaro’s Metropolis and Ghost in the Shell come to mind), certainly the animation is impressively fluid especially during an aerial dogfight near the film’s climax. The most impressive technical feat here however is Yôko Kanno’s fabulously catchy soundtrack, if the sign of a great song is one that is familiar but new then Kanno delivers in spades. From the opening “Ask DNA” to the showstopping “What Planet is This?” An electrifying and bombastic jazz brouhaha that brings out the wit and adventure that every scene of this movie promises but never delivers.
It should be noted that this is the opinion of someone who has never seen the series, and it may yet be brilliant and this film may be an example of a damp squib that carries the name of Cowboy Bebop. The film itself thankfully appears to be more of a spin-off than a continuation of a narrative from the series (as opposed to the ‘fan only’ offerings of Final Fantasy Advent Children’ or the arguably superior The End of Evangelion) but the problem is a fundamental lack of empathy, wit or urgency. Sure there is style, buckets of it, but an offshoot of a series should be more than just a disposable skirmish. Film as a medium demands more than that, in film, you bring out the heavy guns, rack up the tension, make the characters NEED each other (as opposed to bemoaning their social inability), grab the popcorn and turn off the lights. The rumoured live action adaptation couldn’t be more urgently required, there’s a lot of room for improvement.
Cowboy Bebop: The Movie is currently available from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.
