Tuesday, 30 December 2014
Another year over. What have you done?
2014. A so-so year for films but a great year for science-fiction. 'Interstellar', 'Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes', 'Edge Of Tomorrow', 'Under The Skin' and 'The Congress' would all be in contention for places in my top ten were I dull and predictable to do such a thing. 'Guardians Of The Galaxy' was cinematic fast food but I can see why people like it; just not for me. 'Robocop' was worse than the tv series of 'Robocop' and 'Godzilla' is a lumbering, stinking, bore of a movie.
'The Guest' is my "they don't make 'em like that anymore" b-movie of the year and 'The Raid 2' is the best action flick of the year. Both are terrific Friday night films.
'Sin City 2' showed that you can polish a turd and '300: Rise Of An Empire' showed that you can just serve one up.
'The Babadook' would be my horror movie of the year (in the absence of any competition) and 'Annabelle' just made me want to pluck my eyes out.
I learnt to avoid big screen comedy and more importantly discovered that I really, really don't get Wes Anderson. 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' is my "most overrated" film of the year. An honourable mention goes to 'Noah' which was bobbins - but ambitious and was also the most viewed post this year
I enjoyed 'The Lego Movie' but found it wanting when I watched it again. 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' proved that Marvel really know what they're doing. 'The Amazing Spider Man 2' proved that Sony really haven't a clue.
I liked 'The Wolf Of Wall Street' and 'Inside Llewelyn Davis' but they seem like they're from another era already. 'Gone Girl' I didn't expect much from but really enjoyed and I thought 'Maze Runner' was terrific fun and really exciting to watch.
Of the films I didn't see - only 'Leviathan', ''71', 'Nightcrawler', 'Pride' and 'Blue Ruin' are calling me. I'm sure I can quite happily live without ever seeing 'Frank', 'Her' or 'Boyhood'....but will we ever get to see 'Snowpiercer', 'Jodorowsky's Dune' or 'Enemy' in the UK?
Scarlett Johansson, Julianne Moore, Essie Davis and Rosamund Pike would be vying for my best actress award and Cumberbatch and McConaughey for best actor. Best director? Probably David Fincher, or Jennifer Kent for 'The Babadook'. Best picture? 'Interstellar' even though, strangely, I have no real desire to see it again any time soon.
2015 already looks promising with 'Whiplash', 'American Sniper' and 'Inherent Vice' all on the immediate horizon. Apparently they're making another 'Star Wars' movie too.
I slowed down my viewing towards the end of the year - mostly because it just seems to be a glut of family fare and indigestible franchise movies - "Mockingjay Part 1', 'The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies' that feel like a chore just to think about, let alone go and see. I'm sure I'll motivate myself to catch up with them in the coming days.
Strangely, despite my commitment to updating the blog, I've probably actually seen less films than in previous years. I don't subscribe to any movie channels or services and basically just go and see whatever takes my fancy. I love movies but I'm less engaged with them than I used to be. This blog exists as my way of working out what I think about them. Thanks for dropping by and I hope you've found something on the blog this year to grab your attention. If you like what you see remember to like my facebook page and maybe follow me on twitter.
I'll see you on the other side of the New Year - maybe not as often and maybe in a slightly different format - I'm not sure myself yet. Have a good one!
Sunday, 30 November 2014
A Mystery Inside An Enigma. 'The Imitation Game'.
Benedict Cumberbatch has pretty much cornered the market in playing arrogant anti-social geniuses so it is no surprise to find him here playing arrogant anti-social genius Alan Turing. What is a surprise is that "Cumberbatch fatigue" hasn't set in and that he still has enough weaponry in his acting arsenal to find new levels of sensitivity and subtlety and manages a performance that makes you forget all about Sherlock. Keira Knightley, Mark Strong and Charles Dance are all great too.
It's an excellent film and uncommonly entertaining considering that this could so easily have become a talky, worthy bore. There's a fractured narrative, lots of spy-story intrigue and plenty of thematic strands to follow but it all works. It never becomes convoluted and never loses sight of the emotional pull or the human tragedy. Yes, yes it's about cracking impossible cryptic codes but it's also about trying to crack social codes and it's about us trying to decypher the man, understand the sacrifices made and realign our perspective of the war. The story of Turing and Bletchley Park deserves to be as well known as 'The Dam Busters' but it is right that the social condemnation he suffered and the secrecy surrounding his achievements is given equal gravitas.
The title 'The Imitation Game' refers to the paper on machine intelligence that established Turing's name academically but as the film goes on it becomes clear that this is a wonderfully multi-layered title that feeds into all the key themes. It's clever, but it's not clever-clever. If anything the worst parts of the film are the scenes where the life lessons are overemphasised. When the line - "Sometimes it is the people no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine" you can almost see the highlighter pen underneath it and there are some preposterously cinematic "Eureka!" moments, but not to worry, I'd rather it went for the mass audience over the art house crowd.
It's not a thriller but it is thrilling and a film you should see.
Saturday, 15 November 2014
Dook! Dook! Dook! The Babadook.
I finally caught up with 'The Babadook' this week, just before it disappears from cinemas, and I'm glad I did because it is almost certainly the best horror film of 2014. If it even is a horror film. The emphasis is on psychological unease rather than formulaic jump scares and it's reminiscent of films in the vein of 'Repulsion', 'Spider' and 'We Need To Talk About Kevin'. It's not a monster movie. It's a "monsters of the mind" movie.
In an Australian suburb a single mother struggles with her grief several years after losing her husband in a car accident that happened as they drove to the hospital to give birth. The boy who was born on the same day as Amelia's husband died is now a 'difficult' six year old with a vivid imagination, an arsenal of home made weaponry and all manner of behavioural problems. All the sympathy and support seems to be drying up. The school authorities are getting serious, Amelia's sister is distancing herself and her employer is losing patience. All of these problems compound the feelings of grief and resentment. And now there is this pop-up book - 'Mister Babadook' that seems to be foreshadowing other horrors to come. The monster is waiting outside this unhappy house. Dook! Dook! Dook! Can you hear him knocking?
If you look at any of those Top Ten horror film lists you'll see 'The Exorcist', 'Halloween', 'Rosemary's Baby', 'The Shining', 'Let The Right One In', 'The Omen' , 'Carrie', 'Don't Look Now' and 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' as perennial choices. They are all to a larger or lesser extent about our fear of children or fear for children. 'The Babadook' has nods to all of them and is worthy of joining the canon. This is not a reheating of hackneyed themes but an intelligent progression and exploration of the genre.
It's an accomplished debut film from Jennifer Kent. The framing and pacing of the film recall the early work of that other Antipodean director - Jane Campion but it definitely has a distinct flavour of its own. An American or European take on this material would probably have turned out quite ordinary. This is also one of the best edited horror films that I've seen in a long while. It has a slow burn set up but it never drags its feet. Scenes seem to last exactly as long as they need to and the audience is trusted to fill in the gaps. What a joy it is to see stop-motion and in-camera effects rather than the usual barrage of CGI imagery. There are even sequences inspired by film pioneer Georges Méliès and German expressionism. It's the perfect antidote to stupid fucking creepy doll movies and quiet, quiet, bang! scares.
Essie Davis and Noah Wiseman are fabulous as mother and son. Horror films are normally derailed by actors not being up to the job if the role calls for something beyond screaming and looking worried. Your sympathies and viewpoints will shift a lot with these characters; these performances keep them as believable people you really care about.
Is it scary though? Well, yes....and no. This is always a problem. What's 'scary' differs from person to person. I would say that 'The Babadook' is more "unsettling" than "scary", but then again I don't particularly find 'The Shining' "scary" even though I admire it. This film certainly wrong-footed the audience I saw it with, who thought they were going to see another 'Annabelle', but then couldn't quite figure out where to scream and giggle. The intention is not to provide a rollercoaster ride of jump scares or create a new "Freddy' or 'Jason'. Instead, this is a subtle and powerful impression of a mind unravelling itself in the face of domestic horrors and the gentle drift into mental illness.
'The Babadook' embraces everything good about the horror genre, draws on the best material within that genre and reshapes it into new and unnerving shapes. It's ambitious and distinguished and exciting. It also has a great ending that doesn't need a big stupid twist or apocalyptic destruction to make it work. It's small-scale but epic in its implications.
'Annabelle' felt like the nadir of modern horror. 'The Babadook' feels like a good place to start again. Let's hope it is. After all, you can't get rid of the Babadook.
Dook! Dook! Dook!
Wednesday, 12 November 2014
"My God, It's Full Of Stars!".....And Tears. 'Interstellar'.
I hate Christopher Nolan 'cause he made me cry.
crying
crying
touchy feely
trying not to cry
crying
drowning in tears
some space stuff
crying again
I don't do crying at the movies. I'm far too aware of how I'm being manipulated to let that happen. I've sat stoney faced through 'Titanic' and others. But 'Interstellar' really got to me - on a deep level that I can't quite fathom. It made me cry. Bastard!
And I don't just mean 'cry' as in wiping a tear away from my cheek at the end of the movie. No, I mean welling up a third of the way into the film and then pretty much not being able to stop. I mean, bawling like a baby crying. Bastard! Bastard, bastard film!
Maybe it was because I was a bit ill with a bad cold. Maybe I had an allergic reaction in the cinema. Maybe it's because 'Interstellar' is a harrowing, emotional powerhouse that doesn't let up and resonates on intensely personal and epic levels. Maybe it's because it's about love transcending everything. Maybe it's because it's the best film of 2014 and I'm not even remotely a Nolan fanboy. Maybe it's because it's a masterpiece and we've forgotten what they look like. Whatever. It's a bastard. An incredible, beautiful, unforgettable bastard,
And to think I thought it was going to be shit because the trailer looked boring.
Bastard.
Q: So what is 'Interstellar' about?
A: It's about three hours long and makes you cry for about one of them. Even during the action scenes. Bastard.
Q: Is it as good as '2001'?
A: Did Kubrick make you cry? Well, did he? No, he didn't.
Q: Is the story any good?
A: I dunno, what do you want? Exploring our place in the universe, reaching out to save ourselves, making the ultimate sacrifice, crossing the boundaries of space and time, the minuscule made epic and the epic made minuscule. It hasn't got giant robots hitting each other if that's what you're asking. Or space lizards. Or Batman. It has got crying.
Q: I heard it's full of plot holes and bad science. Is that true?
A: It's science fiction, you dullard! You might as well pick fault with the stars. Or tears.
Q: Should I see it in on an Imax screen?
A: Just how big do you want Matthew McConaughey's tears to be? Look, just go and see it. It's bold, it's ambitious and original. It's cinema at it's best. On one level it is a film about cinema, about Nolan pushing the form a little bit further. Just don't watch it on your mobile phone.
Q: What's the big twist?
A: It's a poem about humanity. That's the big twist. No gimmicks, no logic puzzles. Humanity.
Q: My friend says its "meh". My friend says it's not as good as 'The Dark Knight'. My friend says it's not Christopher Nolan's best film. What do you say to that?
A: Your friend is a fucking idiot.
Q: Is it sentimental?
A: Yes, but it's sincere and it's not trite.
Q: What else can you tell me about it?
A: Nothing. I don't want to. Just go and see it for yourself.
Q: Will I cry?
A: Probably. Yes. Unless you only want space battles.
Interstellar. It's not flawless but it is perfect. And it made me cry.
Bastard.
Dysfunctional Family. 'This Is Where I Leave You'.
Despite being an only child I have a penchant for movies about fighting siblings. Any film that features a strong ensemble cast, a confined social situation and well written dialogue will usually work but they are rare beats these days and so it was a delight to watch 'This Is Where I Leave You' as it is a proper movie for grown ups; strong on comedy and strong on drama without the need to pretend its a rom-com or high art.
It is what it is - a film about a dysfunctional family trying to get through testing times. It has enough wit and insight and warmth to make it worth your while and whilst it won't be on anyone's end of year best of list it's definitely worth catching it if you can.
When the patriarch of this dysfunctional family dies the four siblings are forced to spend a whole week together under one roof with their mother and various spouses, exes and ghosts from the past. It's reminiscent of 'The Big Chill' and 'Peter's Friends' and is as good as either of them. It's got a great script and a cast that know how to make it work. What's not to like? Plus you get a great turn from Jane Fonda, a showcase for Jason Bateman at his best and the always reliable Tina Fey. Quite how the director of 'Real Steel' (the boxing robots movie) managed to pull this off is a mystery but he has and this is a fun movie to stumble across.
The Woman Who Fell To Earth. 'Under The Skin'.
I finally caught up with 'Under The Skin' recently and I still don't know what to make of it. It's an odd film because it's everything that it's not.
It's an intimate indie film, set in Glasgow and the surrounding highlands, largely shot on hidden cameras - but it has the budget to match its ambitions, a gloss finish, Scarlett Johansson and state of the art SFX.
It's about a super sexy serial killing alien....without any genre trappings whatsoever. Imagine a Ken Loach version of 'Species'. Imagine David Cronenberg doing 'Local Hero'.
It is deliberately ambiguous, defiantly arty and admirably ambitious....but it also feels slight, self important and empty.
It's flamboyant and naturalistic; visually stunning in a way that does and doesn't call attention to itself. Fascinating but simultaneously repetitive and static.
It has moments of greatness; the beach scene would have made a stunning short film in itself. There are also plenty of mundane moments that just make you wonder if the filmmaker's had a proper grasp on the material.
It's a sensual experience rather than a narrative one, which is fine in itself.... but the trouble is that it's disturbing, erotic and freaky...without ever really getting...well....under the skin.
In short it's too arty for mainstream audiences and probably not challenging enough for the art house crowd. There's plenty of room for debate, reflection and interpretation but for me it felt like a sandwich when I wanted a full meal. What does it mean to be human? Can we ever really know another person? Identity. Sexual politics. Objectification. The filling is all there but there's no bread to hold it all together. I guess it's all about seeing ourselves through alien eyes. In which case I will probably stick with 'The Man Who Fell To Earth' as the main course when I want an 'exotic alien takes on humanoid form and trippy shit happens' movie.
Definitely worth seeing and whilst maybe not as compelling or as challenging as you might want it to be it's a striking piece of work.
A mixed bag of contradictions then - just like humanity itself.
Sunday, 2 November 2014
Five Years. Is that all we've got? Superhero movie reviews 2015-2020
Does it feel like Marvel and DC own your lives until 2020?
Does it feel like you are a non person unless you are kept in a fever pitch of adolescent excitement by relentless marketing campaigns?
Does it feel like the death of cinema?
Here's my predictions for the next five years....
2015:
May 1: Avengers: Age of Ultron
....it's alright....
July 17: Ant-Man
....alright....but not as good as Avengers: Age of Ultron
August 7: Fantastic Four
....a missed opportunity (again!)....
2016:
February 12: Deadpool
....a man with a gun...who really gives a shit?....
March 25: Batman V Superman
...Did anyone really expect this to be good?
May 6: Captain America: Civil War
...The Empire Strikes Back of Marvel films.....
May 27: X-Men: Apocalypse
....the exact point where superhero fatigue sets in...
August 5: Suicide Squad
....slit your wrists time....
November 4: Doctor Strange
..trippy hippy nonsense....but worth seeing just for Cumberbatch exclaiming: "By the hoary hosts of Hogarth!"
November 11: Sinister Six
...oh, good God, make it stop....
2017:
March 3: Untitled Wolverine sequel
....Doesn't Hugh Jackman look really old....
May 5: Guardians of the Galaxy 2
....'Copacabana' and 'Disco Duck' are on the soundtrack...
June 23: Wonder Woman
....phwoar!!.....
July 14: Fantastic Four 2
....four!....
July 28: Thor: Ragnarok
...Thor!...
November 3: Black Panther
....bore!.....
November 17: Justice League, Part 1
....chore!....
(unspecified tentative date): Venom: Carnage Spider-Man spin-off
...gore!...
(unspecified date): Untitled female Spider-Man spin-off
...itsy bitsy spider...
2018:
March 23: The Flash
....the flush more like...
May 4: Avengers: Infinity War, Part 1
....the post end credits scene is a classic...
July 6: Captain Marvel
...WTF did I just watch?....
July 13: Untitled Fox Mystery Marvel film
..finally, the Devil Dinosaur gets his own movie ...
July 27: Aquaman
...there are only two things in this world that smell of fish.....
November 2: Inhumans
...wanted for crimes against inhumanity....
(unspecified date): Amazing Spider-Man 3
....stop getting Spider-Man wrong!...
2019:
April 5: Shazam
....Billy don't be a hero!...
May 3: Avengers: Infinity War, Part 2
... anti-climax...
June 14: Justice League, Part 2
...sets up exciting possibilities for part 3.....yawn....
2020:
April 3: Cyborg
...the six dollar man....
June 19: Green Lantern
....lights on, nobody home....
Thursday, 23 October 2014
The Filth and the 'Fury' - or, 'Das Boot' on caterpillar tracks.
So there was I thinking that 'Inglourious Basterds' was the last word in second world war movies when along comes 'Fury', with Brad Pitt still killing Nazis in Germany - this time in a tank.
The 'Fury' is a Sherman tank helmed by Pitt, who has led his crew through the best part of the conflict. Logan Lerman is the wide eyed innocent forced to join this battle hardened crew.
Director David Ayer is no Tarantino and this is not as multi-layered as 'Basterds' but fortunately he does understand that what makes this sort of drama work is not the battle scenes but the camaraderie between a group of men who know they could die at any moment.
The cast are uniformly great. Pitt achieves something of a career best here. He plays Don 'Wardaddy' Collier very differently to his Lt. Aldo Raine. This character is stalwart in front of his men whilst teetering on the edge of breakdown in private. Other 'A' listers would have turned the role into a show off piece but Pitt is wise enough to play it subtly; blending into the background but always making his presence known. We get a real sense of the psychic toll the conflict has taken on him as much as his will to get the job done right. Logan is cleverly cast as the greenhorn - it really is as if someone has just thrown Percy Jackson into the frontline. He is the film's conscience. Shia LaBeouf method acts to his heart's content in the background but does more than enough here to silence his haters. Like Pitt, he's not over the top. There's no "look at me acting" ticks - just someone really understanding the part and living it.
I once fell asleep in the cinema during 'The Fast and The Furious' (by the same director funnily enough) but there's no way anyone could nap through this. It's LOUD as hell. Every shell fired seems to make the walls of the cinema quake. Really worth seeing this on a big screen if you can. It's also visually rich and I applaud the director and cinematographer Roman Vasyanov for making the cramped interior shots as interesting as the exterior carnage. There's a bravura opening sequence which is as powerful a mood setter as anything I've ever seen. The last shot is pretty good too.
You can feel the gears begin to crunch a third of the way into the film as the pace drops for some lengthy character scenes. This will lose some of the audience no doubt, especially the "show us the gore" crowd (and there is plenty of gore), but these will be the same people who find Tarantino "too talky". Screw you if you can't put up with a bit of talking. The middle part of the film turns to that most modern of movie cliches - 'the uncomfortable dinner table scene'. It's actually very well done but doesn't crank up the tension to the same degree as similar scenes in 'Inglorious Basterds' (and I promise that this is the last time I will mention that film, or Mr T, in the write up of this one - sorry but it's difficult not to reference it repeatedly). It's a necessary scene in my opinion as it shows the two leads trying to hold on to a scarce moment of normality but I'm not sure it pays off to the extent it should. It felt like a manipulative device, a cliche, and that lessened the emotional impact. There's a lot of different ways that scene could have ended and you suspect in real life it would have turned a lot nastier. But that is always the trouble with films like this. Make the milieu as brutal and as authentic as you can but then sweeten it to make it more palatable/watchable for audience. That's fair enough though; otherwise you'd end up with the cinematic equivalent of a Sven Hassel novel. Nobody wants that.
The final part of the film where this single tank has to hold its position against insurmountable odds is one of the most realistic combat sequences ever filmed and also a preposterous '300'-ish war story fantasy. It's a stunning piece of film-making though, by anyone's standards, and rivals 'Gravity' for that cumulative bad-situation-made-worse effect.
In short, if you like your war-is-hell films then you'll love it. It has the claustrophobia and unrelenting tension of 'Das Boot', the cynicism of 'Cross Of Iron' and the mise-en-scene of 'Saving Private Ryan'. If you don't like war-is-hell movies then I don't know....Brad Pitt takes his shirt off...what can I say? The Box Trolls is playing on another screen. Maybe you should see that. Let me know how it was.
Tuesday, 21 October 2014
I Know You've Got Soul. 'Northern Soul'.
I don't really like 'northern soul' music, it's too much like chewing the same piece of gum all night for my tastes; I prefer my soul funkier, but that didn't stop me from enjoying the film 'Northern Soul'. It does the job of capturing a very specific slice of British sub-culture and should resonate across generations and tribal cultures.
As you would expect, the film is strong on location and painstaking detail. It doesn't feel like the cast have just put on period clothes. It feels like they're living it. This isn't a rose-tinted look at the seventies with a few funny jackets and wigs, this is the real deal. It's a grimy, smeared glass, beer stained look at the period. The camera lens even seems to capture the light and dust of the past. This film doesn't go for the easy route of filming in black and white (as in 'Control' the Joy Division biopic) but really strives to get the colours, the textures and lighting right for authenticity and emotional impact.
Two friends get into the scene and live for the weekend. Loyalties are tested, lives are changed, dreams are broken. It's not much of a story and nothing we've not seen before but the music, the dancing and liveliness of the film make it exhilarating to watch.
Director Elaine Constantine believably captures the euphoria of the dance floor but doesn't shy away from the ubiquitous drug use, the elitism, and the male dominance of the scene. She captures the essence of what it is like to be these young men full of energy, full of anger, channeling their focus onto something that makes them feel alive but absolutely nails the claustrophobia and frustration of their lives away from the dance floor too. It's"feel good" but not light, it's political but not overt, life affirming but not sentimental.
The two male leads are strong enough to carry the film (despite having little more than 'Hollyoaks' and 'Casualty' on their cvs) and there's fine support from the rest of the cast. I particularly thought John Thomson and James Lance got their respective DJ roles spot on. Ricky Tomlinson, Steve Coogan and Lisa Stansfield are in it too, but largely irrelevant (especially Tomlinson) and these are little more than extended cameos used to prop up a cast of largely unknown talent. If anything, the film could have been braver in dispensing with the more obvious narrative trappings altogether. But then it probably wouldn't have got made.
I'm glad that northern soul has finally got the movie it deserves. It's good but not great. It's no 'Quadrophenia'. It's no 'Saturday Night Fever'. But it's not a bad attempt. As a drama it does lack something but I'm still glad it's out there and keeping the faith.
Now, if somebody wants to give me some millions to make the definitive c86 / goth / dreampop / shoegaze movie then I am available for talks. Thanks.
Friday, 17 October 2014
Amazeballs!!! I Liked 'The Maze Runner'.
Help the young adult and his friends escape from the maze....
In Greek mythology, the Labyrinth was constructed by Daedalus for King Minos of Crete and designed to hold the Minotaur, a half man, half bull creature, which was fed human sacrifice. Each year Minos demanded that Athens send him a tribute of seven young men and seven maidens to honour him and thus avert going to war. Each year the delegation was sacrificed to the beast until Theseus faced, and defeated, the Minotaur in the King's Labyrinth. Daedalus had constructed the maze with such cunning that he himself was barely able to find the way out and, having killed the Minotaur, Theseus was only able to escape because he could retrace his steps using Ariadne's thread, literally a "clew", or "clue".
I bloody loved the story of Theseus as a small child. It was my favourite and I read this book over and over again.
But as an adult it poses an interesting problem. Scholars agree that the Minotaur was held in the centre of a labyrinth. But a labyrinth is not the same as a maze. A labyrinth is a unicursal path, a winding straight line. The route is secure. It may seem to be chaotic at times but there is always one clear path to follow. In short, you cannot get lost in a labyrinth. How the hell then did Daedalus the so-called "master designer" struggle to find his way out? Why didn't the Minotaur just walk out? And how come Theseus was such a thicko that he needed a thread to find his way out. Idiots! the lot of them.
This is a labyrinth
This is a maze
In a labyrinth, you just have to trust the path, find the centre, not get eaten and then leave.
In a maze you have free will. You have choices, there is no middle area goal to reach and you will almost certainly get lost.
A labyrinth is a contemplative path, as is a maze to a certain extent, but a maze is more about the tension between fate and free will.
The maze in 'The Maze Runner' is an ever shifting maze within a labyrinth. Theseus would have lasted about five minutes in this one. Ariadne's thread would have been fucking useless.
Labyrinths and mazes are found all over the world, and they are important cultural works, giving insight into our history and psyche. Prehistoric labyrinths served as traps for evil spirits or as paths for initiation rites or dances. In Medieval times the labyrinth symbolized the hard path to finding God. Pilgrims to Chartres Cathedral completed their arduous journey by shuffling around on their knees in prayer (possibly whilst being beaten too) following a labyrinth laid out on the floor.
In alchemy and in the Renaissance labyrinths lose their centre. The person in the labyrinth is the centre, a reflection of learned wisdom. Symbolically labyrinths and mazes reveal complexity and simplicity, mystery and design, intuition and received information. Labyrinths and mazes are bloody brilliant!
I am someone who grew up with a love for reading Greek myths, who became obsessed with dungeons and dragons, who lived through the survival horror that was '3D Monster Maze' on the ZX81, who still shudders to think of the number of times that he died in 'Deathtrap Dungeon', who watched The Crystal Maze every week and is someone who can still be found running around computer generated corridors with a blaster in his hand. Mazes have always been a part of my life. And what is the inter-web if not the ultimate maze? What is blogging if not a twisty path of false starts, dead ends and long rambling threads where the writer can't ever seem to get to the bloody point?
So then, what can I say about 'The Maze Runner' without using the phrase "it's 'Lord Of The Flies' meets the 'Hunger Games'". Well it's two of the most entertaining hours I've spent in a cinema this year. There are times when the 12 year old in me just wanted to burst out screaming with excitement because it was that good.
The best thing about books for 'young adults' (as we're calling them now) is that they cut the bullshit, keep you fervently turning the pages to find out what happens next and resonate with those trying to come to terms with all manner of bewildering social structures. It's why grown-ups want to read them too - there's a pace and ease you just don't get in even the best adult "escapism" novels. Most of the young adult novels adapted for the screen are allegories. The dystopian future is already a cliche but a fucked up world already surrounds you when you're 12 years old. Why wouldn't you want to explore that on some philosophical level. What choices to make? What path to follow?
'The Maze Runner' seems to be the purest distillation of the form so far with an idea so simple but so immediately thrilling that it is wonderful.
We are thrown into the action from the very first frame, unable to get our bearings, running for our life, quickly brought down by the first obstacle. It is a tour-de-force opening, probably the best pre-credits sequence this year and indicative of what will follow. This is one of those film that makes you wonder how it passed with a 12A certificate. It's nail biting enough to watch as an adult. It's dark, puzzling and ever threatening. It feels very real.
So you don't know who you are, you don't remember anything at all, but here you are - in an open prison with no guards but also penned in by huge, solid, impenetrable walls. This is the Glade, a green oasis, and you are not alone. There are others here, the same sex and age as you - but just as lost, just as blank. You survive on what you forage. This community only has rules of its own devising, based on a fragile consensus. Every morning a gap in the wall is opened by some unseen force. Beyond is a vast maze. Every night the gap closes. If you are caught inside you are never seen again. There is something that preys on the trapped and every day the maze is different. Is it better to exist in ignorance in the Glade or look for answers in the maze. What would you do?
Come on - that's brilliant - isn't it? I love it. There's little bits of films that are important to me in there - 'King Kong', 'Planet Of The Apes', 'Escape From New York', bits of primal fears like 'Alien' along with a bit of cult movie appeal along the lines of 'The Village', 'Cube', 'Logan's Run' and of course, a great big dollop of the good old 'man-hunts-man' plot along the lines of 'The Most Dangerous Game/Hounds Of Zaroff/The Running Man'. Yeah, well I'm all in with that.
It ticks all the boxes for me - but I didn't expect it to be this good. Like 'Hunger Games' I thought we'd spend an hour getting to the chase, I thought we'd have a love triangle and I thought we'd get lots of Californian, shiny teeth moppets to get annoyed by. Instead it was breathless, gripping and superbly crafted. These teens all have interesting faces, like they've stepped out of a Sergio Leone film instead of central casting. They can act too. Will Poulter, from 'Son Of Rambow' and 'We're The Millers' is outstanding once again. If anything, the blandest of the lot is our hero Dylan O'Brien, but that's fine, he needs to be a cypher anyway. It's very well directed by Wes Ball who doesn't have many credits to his name but this film never feels 'safe' or family friendly. The action is visceral and brutal but best of all - you can see what's going on. No shaky cam, no fast edits, just great choreography and camera movement. There is CGI but it is convincingly done and not overused. The 'Grievers' that patrol the maze are a genuinely scary creation but the maze itself is nightmarish as its walls grind and shift into ever more elaborate traps. At times it's pure cinema in as much as the plot doesn't really matter - there's just a universal appeal in seeing people trying to escape a maze.
The ending should be a problem. By now you should know that the nature of films like this is that they are a franchise and exist only as part of a greater whole. I can rant on about how films should always be self contained and like most people I am bored when a series of books is dragged out into ever more elongated and prolonged sequels. For once though, it felt right to leave wanting more. What is it all about? Other than the obvious themes already touched upon I've really no idea. The film ends by replacing one set of questions with another set of questions. But for once that feels quite fitting. We have come full circle to the starting point.
Socrates describes the labyrinth line of logical argument thus in Plato's Eutydemus:
And so there we are, I started out talking Greek mythology and labyrinths and that's where I'm going to exit. In the middle of all this is something like a film review. I liked 'The Maze Runner' a lot and hope it doesn't get lost in the glut of young adult adaptations already out there. Go see it and run your own maze.
Wednesday, 15 October 2014
HELLo Dolly! It's 'Annabelle'.
I went to play Creepy Doll Movie Bingo with new movie 'Annabelle' but failed to get a full house because I made a stupid mistake. Yep, I sort of assumed that a Creepy Doll Movie would at the very least have a creepy doll doing something other than just sitting there looking creepy. Even, if it wasn't going to do a full Chucky on us it should at the very least have swivelled it's eyes, or talked or puked or something. No. Nothing. This has to be one of the most underwhelming horror movies ever theatrically released.
Even if you find inanimate objects scary you will be disappointed.
If you find women with long hair, sewing machines and popcorn scary than you might just find something here to give you a fright. Otherwise forget it.
It's one of those films where you can say that the trailer really is the movie. Everything else is padding. Apart from one scare lifted directly from 'Insidious'.
'Annabelle' is a sort of sister film to 'The Conjuring' and it makes that particular bland, mainstream horror film for people who don't really like horror films look like 'The Shining' in comparison.
Look, I know it's not aimed at me, I'm a jaded horror movie veteran, but it's difficult to see who will enjoy this unless you are a pre-teen who hyperventilates at the sight of the BBFC certificate card. Find any spooky 70s tv movie on Youtube and it will be scarier, better constructed and more involving than this. The trailer for 'The Babadook' that came on before this is actually better than the entirety of 'Annabelle'.
For a moment I thought it was going to have an edge to it. It alludes to the Manson murders and sets you thinking that this is going to have a serious subtext about how America never really recovered from that dark period where the 60s turned into the 70s. But no. It's just window dressing; shorthand period detail. You could, if desperate, find some subtext, something about the fears of motherhood but it's all been done much better before - most obviously 'Rosemary's Baby'. 2014 and we're still being served up Rosemary's Baby rip offs. Thanks.
As a horror fan, you learn to live with stupid characters doing stupid things, but this takes incredulity to a new level. The wife has to go to the bookshop to look up devil worship. Husband bins the demonic doll and like a boomerang it comes back; wife decides to keep it anyway. Husband hears a noise in the night, ignores the phone on his bedside table, fails to phone the police even though the couple have already been victims of violent assault and wanders around the house to investigate by himself. Mother constantly seems to leave baby in dangerous situations. None of the incidental characters points out that not only is the doll really, really creepy but that it's butt ugly to boot.
A major part of the appeal of 'The Conjuring' was that it was based on real events and there is indeed a real 'Annabelle' doll. It looks like this:
A really, quite nice raggedy doll.
Not this:
I mean, who would love this? Who would put this above their child's bed?
The thing is....if you're going to go to all the trouble of making a doll look this creepy you'd think you'd want to showcase it in a better movie. But 'Annabelle' is almost incidental in this dull, tired, bland nonsense. The 'true' story is quite interesting if you can be bothered to look it up. Why not make that that the movie? Why not make a movie where something happens? But then again, I guess why would you, when all you need to do is get some no name actors, a no name director (oh, I'm sorry - he did 'Mortal Kombat') and film just enough good material to make a trailer.
Piss poor straight to DVD crap that somehow got released as a major film in the run up to Halloween. Go and see 'Bride of Chucky' instead.
I Shall Become A Bat. 'Dracula: Untold'.
Right, here's the pitch:
"Everyone loves Batman, yeah? Specifically everyone loves dark and moody Batman. Well, what if I told you that Universal is sitting on its very own dark and moody superhero? This guy makes Batman look like a wet wipe. He's super strong, he has super heightened senses, he can see in the dark....and this is the kicker....he can go one better than Batman.... because.... here is a man who can.... literally.... turn himself into a bat! He can fucking turn himself into a thousand bats if needed. Ladies and gentlemen I give you 'Dracula: The Dark Lord Rises'.
Fuck Marvel and their "shared universe". We're going to make "shared Universal" movies and you know how we're going to do it? We're going to take Dracula, and we're going to take Frankenstein, and we're going to take The Wolfman and we're going to take The Mummy and we're going to turn them ALL into superheroes. And we're going to make them appear in each others movies and we're going to make them fight each other and screw each other and team up to fight giant robots and giant lizards and we'll make tv spin-offs and comics and computer games and the future will be ours!.
You know when Dracula was last done right? 1992. Gary Oldman in 'Gary Oldman's Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula' or whatever it was called. And you know that the only bit of that movie that was any good was the beginning, the bit with Vlad the Impaler. Yeah, well we're going to make that bit the whole fucking movie! The kids today weren't even born in 1992, they won't know. They deserve their own Dracula origin movie and we're going to give it to them.
Okay, here's another question for you? What does the the word 'Dracula' actually mean? It means Dragon. And you know what the most popular show on tv right now is? That's right 'Game Of Thrones' - the one with the dragons in it! And you know what we're going to do? We're going to make our Dracula in the style of Game Of Thrones; in fact we'll steal some of their actors. But it's going to be epic, like 'Lord Of The Rings' but with vampires. That's ten years of money rolling in right there.
Imagine Batman with a sword fighting insurmountable odds. That's right, that's our Dracula. Fuck '300' and all those pussies in loincloths. '300'? Fuck 'em. There's only one Dracula and he's fucking hardcore, he can take them all on....by himself. A whole movie of Dracula mowing down some fucking foreigner's armies. That's what people want.
But I know what you're thinking. You're thinking this is going to be expensive. There's too much location shooting, too many special effects and that all costs money. Well listen, we're not going to go to fucking New Zealand for this. We can do this on the cheap. We can go to Ireland. Miserable, dreary, bleak, drizzling, bog filled Ireland. It will make it look authentic. As for the special effects - I know this kid who can do a great looking bat storm thing on his computer. We'll just use that. A lot.
You can't make Dracula without blood and gore though, right? Well, duh, yes you can if you want to get a 12A rating. Fuck blood. Blood is so 20th century. There's going to be no blood in this vampire movie!
Hey, but what about the girls? The girls aren't going to want to see this are they? Are you kidding me? This isn't old man Dracula sneaking into a virgin's boudoir. This is sexy young Dracula, sensitive Dracula, romantic Dracula. This Dracula reads poetry like whatsit in Twilight and bares his chest like that other whatsit in Twilight and he has really nice teeth. We'll get some up and coming good looking guy. Someone a bit cheap who needs a leg up. Someone British. And you know what else we'll do? We'll make Castle Dracula look like Hogwarts; not just a bit, we'll make it look exactly like Hogwarts.
I know some of you are scared and I can understand that. You're still smarting from 'Van Helsing' and 'The Wolfman' and 'I, Frankenstein' and all that, but this is going to be different, this is going to be classy. I've already thought of some great dialogue:
"The great impaler can't even penetrate his woman." Get it?
I tell you, they'll all be quoting that line years from now.
Look, there's no denying that this is a big important film for us. So what we're going to do is give it to a nobody director. That way, if it goes tits up, we'll blame it on him. If it doesn't, and he's actually good, then we have him tied in to a three movie deal. Win - win. Fucking win!"
"Trust me! It's going to look great."
Having said all that - I quite enjoyed it....at first. It was nowhere near as bad as I was expecting and the first hour rattles along in an entertaining fashion. After the first bat swarm battle sequence though, I did quickly become bored. It became repetitive and ran out of steam (a sword fight in a tent?) and I just wanted to hit fast forward. To me the whole thing felt like the pilot episode for a tv series. On that level it was just fine. The ending only served to make this feeling more apparent as it clearly paves the way for a series of bland sequels that will sidestep having anything to do with the source material other than the character names. The strange thing about the whole concept is you can really sense this film struggling to make Dracula relevant for today's audiences when there's really no need. There hasn't been a good adaptation for decades. There certainly isn't a definitive version ('Nosferatu"is as close as we get) out there, so why not, just, you know, make a really good retelling of Dracula. That would be more relevant and exciting than pissing about with trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.
The Count gives it five out of ten. It's average entertainment, interesting at times, tedious towards the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)