Year: 2009
Director: Sam Raimi
Screenplay: Sam Raimi and Ivan Raimi
Starring: Alison Lohman, Justin Long
Film Synopsis is here
I'm not going to talk about Sam Raimi's last film because you know...it's been spoken about enough. I will say I was surprised that Raimi decided to jump back the genre that made him famous. It's been a very long time since his last entry and I thought he'd be placing script touches on a comic book character that I'll say not too much about (this is not to say i minded the third film it was just weak).
I had so many reservations about Drag me to hell, most of them stemming from an "ok" trailer and the hyperbole posters/T.V spots that I began to see all over the place. I wanted to watch the film but when I'm told that the film is a "return to form" and my most hated word in film (next to overrated) a "masterpiece" I felt that this is a lot of praise for a film that looked pretty underwhelming to me at first glance.
Well Sam Raimi must knew that there would be assholes like me that may watch this by shutting my mouth in the first ten minutes. Drag me to hell is a horror film that pulls no punches from the start. The film is unrelenting from the start, giving us a frantic set up that reminds us of the best of Raimi. He had me from the start I tell you, and I tell you what, it's been a long time since I've seen a horror movie with such big brass balls. When a child is dragged into the depths of hell within the opening scene I know I'm going to love the movie.
It's ballsy scenes like that which place a film like this above the glut of horror remakes/reboots. It's willing to go against the gain and display imagination. That dreadful feeling of "been there done that" is missing from Raimi's film with it's possessed hankies and nose bleed fountains. While the film's style owes a lot the films which made it's director famous, it never feels derivative of a certain infamous trilogy that came before it. In fact it's so fresh i kinda hope people start to nick from it; be it the crazy tilted angles to the vast amount of gross out moments. It's what's needed to cut through the dreary dead teenager movies that have been trust upon us.
The films shocks (and there's a few) are not only creative but effective. I'm not a fan of horror zingers (jump scares) has I find them to be cheap, especially in one note films like A Haunting in Connecticut. With this said, Raimi's jump moments are cranked with so much tension he pulls of the scares with ease. The bizarre camera shots, the fantastic use of sound to create anxiety (and not just for boo moments) even make the scenes in the day time feel....odd. This is a director having fun with himself as well as the audience and it shows.
Another thing it has in common with Raimi's earlier movies is the comedy that counterbalance the horror. The film is so damn funny I had tears running down my face. Yes the films scares are well constructed but it's the slapstick (morbid) humor that comes after that really won me over. With more money and a hell of a lot more freedom Raimi is once again allowed to torture his lead (Lohman at her most innocent and sympathetic) and does so with gusto. It's been a while since I've seen him in this sort of mood and to see it again is nothing short of awesome. It's a mood that gives us a story that doesn't have to resort to a high body count to give us horror.
After 22 years Raimi goes back to the pure genre movies that made him famous and I found it the best comic horror I've seen in ages. It's definitely the best horror film I've seen this year, and will take some beating. In an era of some of the most dull uninspired American Horror on offer, I found Drag me to hell to be the kick up the arse the genre needed. Raimi brings forth a film that's not only laugh out loud funny but filled with more than enough shocks for repeat viewing. I only ask for one thing....when is it out on DVD?
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Monday, 25 May 2009
Review: Tormented
Year: 2009
Director: Jon Wright
Screenplay: Stephen Prentice
Starring: Alex Pettyfer, April Pearson, Larissa Wilson, Tom Hopper
I should watch more TV but I don't. I get bored of TV shows quite easily and the glut of American serials have left me exasperated. There's only so many bad days Jack Bauer can have, you know? But there are a few things I like watching and Skins is one of them. Yes it's exaggerated, but the energy placed within the show wither it's the writing or the performance is clearly visible. Compere that to the deary cop shows (except The Wire of course) and the never ending questions/red herrings of certain other shows and I'll take my OTT Teen show thanks. Cheesy yes but pretentious? Not at all.
This brings me to Tormented which as already been labeled a "skins slasher". I had my reservations of course mostly as it's very lazy hyperbole. It has a couple of actors from Skins in it and it's a horror film. A very easy conclusion for a writer who merely can't be arsed to write about some horror film (maybe).
However in watching Tormented you actually realize that although Skins has "opened a door" for this British slasher, a lot of the movies cues are "like er... totally American". Yes the film is about a bullied teen who comes back to live to reap havoc, however the film borrows so much from Halloween you could constitute it as theft.
This didn't bother me however as the film has more than enough character of it's own. It's themes of bullying, social isolation (both by peers and technology) and that bastard that is puberty are placed right into the forefront. It's nothing you haven't seen before but it's well done. In fact the fact that Tormented puts so much effort into these elements places it leap years in front the remakes and reboots that Hollywood drudges up. However, Tormented suffers from one thing....it's not scary.
The film doesn't reach the dizzying horror heights of genre classics such as Evil Dead or Scream because none of the films set pieces are particularly frightening. They're funny in a Final Destination sort of way but your not going to get nightmares from it. In fact the films bullying scenes are much more terrifying but while they're extremely OTT, there's a eerie aura of truth that lingers around those moments.
From the first kill I was disappointed because the film didn't sent any shivers down my spine. However the films humor kept me going. The dialogue was snappy while the set pieces was full of extreme gore that no one could take seriously. The film also has a streak of cynicism that's been missing from so many horror films lately, that it took me by surprise. Trust us Brits to put the some bitterness back into horror. I was also happy that the film also had a plot, which another thing that's missing from alot of modern horror.
The youthful cast are effective for the most part, April Pearson and Alex Pettyfer play their parts with the right amount of misanthropy while the lead Tuppence Middleton is very likable. Tom Hopper makes sure his performance is more than just gruff muscle (he has the funniest death sequence). Unfortunately Larissa Wilson (Skin's Jal) doesn't have much to do, while the films "nice guy" (can't remember the guys name) comes off a little too awkward.
Tormented hits the mark because due to it's biting comments and comical set pieces. If some of our friends across the border took notice of this then they'd be producing horror movies that I'd remember and actually buy on DVD. Tormented has the right amount of nastiness and laughs that I can see myself watching it on my Xbox before going out on the razz. Well played.
Director: Jon Wright
Screenplay: Stephen Prentice
Starring: Alex Pettyfer, April Pearson, Larissa Wilson, Tom Hopper
I should watch more TV but I don't. I get bored of TV shows quite easily and the glut of American serials have left me exasperated. There's only so many bad days Jack Bauer can have, you know? But there are a few things I like watching and Skins is one of them. Yes it's exaggerated, but the energy placed within the show wither it's the writing or the performance is clearly visible. Compere that to the deary cop shows (except The Wire of course) and the never ending questions/red herrings of certain other shows and I'll take my OTT Teen show thanks. Cheesy yes but pretentious? Not at all.
This brings me to Tormented which as already been labeled a "skins slasher". I had my reservations of course mostly as it's very lazy hyperbole. It has a couple of actors from Skins in it and it's a horror film. A very easy conclusion for a writer who merely can't be arsed to write about some horror film (maybe).
However in watching Tormented you actually realize that although Skins has "opened a door" for this British slasher, a lot of the movies cues are "like er... totally American". Yes the film is about a bullied teen who comes back to live to reap havoc, however the film borrows so much from Halloween you could constitute it as theft.
This didn't bother me however as the film has more than enough character of it's own. It's themes of bullying, social isolation (both by peers and technology) and that bastard that is puberty are placed right into the forefront. It's nothing you haven't seen before but it's well done. In fact the fact that Tormented puts so much effort into these elements places it leap years in front the remakes and reboots that Hollywood drudges up. However, Tormented suffers from one thing....it's not scary.
The film doesn't reach the dizzying horror heights of genre classics such as Evil Dead or Scream because none of the films set pieces are particularly frightening. They're funny in a Final Destination sort of way but your not going to get nightmares from it. In fact the films bullying scenes are much more terrifying but while they're extremely OTT, there's a eerie aura of truth that lingers around those moments.
From the first kill I was disappointed because the film didn't sent any shivers down my spine. However the films humor kept me going. The dialogue was snappy while the set pieces was full of extreme gore that no one could take seriously. The film also has a streak of cynicism that's been missing from so many horror films lately, that it took me by surprise. Trust us Brits to put the some bitterness back into horror. I was also happy that the film also had a plot, which another thing that's missing from alot of modern horror.
The youthful cast are effective for the most part, April Pearson and Alex Pettyfer play their parts with the right amount of misanthropy while the lead Tuppence Middleton is very likable. Tom Hopper makes sure his performance is more than just gruff muscle (he has the funniest death sequence). Unfortunately Larissa Wilson (Skin's Jal) doesn't have much to do, while the films "nice guy" (can't remember the guys name) comes off a little too awkward.
Tormented hits the mark because due to it's biting comments and comical set pieces. If some of our friends across the border took notice of this then they'd be producing horror movies that I'd remember and actually buy on DVD. Tormented has the right amount of nastiness and laughs that I can see myself watching it on my Xbox before going out on the razz. Well played.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Dreamworks to make Martin Luther King biopic
A little while back I was blogged about Presidents and the movies that cropped up in their career. I didn't say too much about what we may see in Obama's term(s) however this bit of breaking news says quite alot.
Spielberg/Dreamworks/Martin Luther King - 1
Spielberg/Dreamworks/Martin Luther King - 2
Now may mean shit to a lot of people but to me it means a bit. Why?
The Malcolm X Film.
A quick glance to wikipedia gives you a quick insight into the amount of production issues that came with the movie.
But now in the realm of a biracial president it doesn't come to any surprise to me that not only the King estate have finally agreed to this, but a studio like Dreamworks look set to finance the film with Spielberg's name behind it on the producing side of things. Especially as this film annoucement as came so quickly within Obama's reign.
My questions now are:
Whose gonna direct this?
Will Spike Lee go nuts about the directors colour
But most importantly
Will this be a powerful, honest portyal of a life thats been way overdue?
Only time will tell
I love trailers I do!
You know the deal. New Trailers come out. I look at them, then make ridiculous judgment on them.
H2
For me I find Rob Zombie to be a frustrating director. He's different from most horror directors working out there, he has a strong viewpoint on the genre and his work displays great confidence. However I'm just never pleased with the finished product (save the lucid and lurid House of 100 corpses). The Halloween remake for me was a needless task which missed the point on why Micheal Myers was feared. However looking at the youtube comments of this trailer it seems that things change and violence and brutality win out over subtle and unquestionable evil. Each to his own. But H2 looks set to be an interesting entry into the slasher stable, with the trailer bringing up a far more intriguing element about it's killer than the all of the many sequel put together. It's a little too Friday The 13th in parts and I kinda hope Zombie stops placing his wife in all of his films (she was of the weakest elements of the remake) but this could be worth a peek.
The Girlfriend Experience:
Steven Soderbergh's back y'all and this time it's not another Oceans film, which usually doesn't bode will for the man. His indie record since his first film Sex lies and videotape hasn't been the greatest and unfortunately this movies trailer didn't make me think any different. But what gets me going about Soderbergh and his lesser seen movies is his willingness to do something a little different. Best example is Bubble. An experiment that didn't work but generally got favorable reviews from many who watched it. The girlfriend experience looks set to try and make it's porn star lead Sasha Grey a credible actress while allowing it's wily director go off on one of his indie exploits. Trailerwise this is a 2 minute trailer that could have been shorter. It gives us a tiny amount of info but takes a long time to tell us. While it's not revealing the plot of the whole film like many trailers do, it does feel like a needlessly lengthened teaser trailer. The music was good though.
District 9:
While I don't know too much about this...I'm going to have to find out asap. The trailer is one of the most unusual and yet relevant ideas I've seen in a while. It seems that the message that this film might portray may be an obvious one and that certain people won't be swayed by any arguments it brings up. But hell if it don't look interesting
H2
For me I find Rob Zombie to be a frustrating director. He's different from most horror directors working out there, he has a strong viewpoint on the genre and his work displays great confidence. However I'm just never pleased with the finished product (save the lucid and lurid House of 100 corpses). The Halloween remake for me was a needless task which missed the point on why Micheal Myers was feared. However looking at the youtube comments of this trailer it seems that things change and violence and brutality win out over subtle and unquestionable evil. Each to his own. But H2 looks set to be an interesting entry into the slasher stable, with the trailer bringing up a far more intriguing element about it's killer than the all of the many sequel put together. It's a little too Friday The 13th in parts and I kinda hope Zombie stops placing his wife in all of his films (she was of the weakest elements of the remake) but this could be worth a peek.
The Girlfriend Experience:
Steven Soderbergh's back y'all and this time it's not another Oceans film, which usually doesn't bode will for the man. His indie record since his first film Sex lies and videotape hasn't been the greatest and unfortunately this movies trailer didn't make me think any different. But what gets me going about Soderbergh and his lesser seen movies is his willingness to do something a little different. Best example is Bubble. An experiment that didn't work but generally got favorable reviews from many who watched it. The girlfriend experience looks set to try and make it's porn star lead Sasha Grey a credible actress while allowing it's wily director go off on one of his indie exploits. Trailerwise this is a 2 minute trailer that could have been shorter. It gives us a tiny amount of info but takes a long time to tell us. While it's not revealing the plot of the whole film like many trailers do, it does feel like a needlessly lengthened teaser trailer. The music was good though.
District 9:
While I don't know too much about this...I'm going to have to find out asap. The trailer is one of the most unusual and yet relevant ideas I've seen in a while. It seems that the message that this film might portray may be an obvious one and that certain people won't be swayed by any arguments it brings up. But hell if it don't look interesting
Monday, 18 May 2009
Review: Angels and Demons
Year: 2009
Director: Ron Howard
Screenplay: David Koepp, Akiva Goldsman
Starring: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Stellan Skarsgård, Ayelet Zurer
I read The Da Vinci Code and thought it was ok in a trashy sort of way. It read like a goosebumps book and I got though it quickly. The film on the other hand was long hard slog. Much like really bad drunken sex where both parties aren't really into it, but plough though both their clothes are off. I didn't read Angels and Demons because life's too short and why read airport thrillers when I could read material that's far more testing and creative.
Why did I sit through Angels and Demons may you ask? Because an arsehole film blogger I have to. It's one of the bigger films and to have it omitted just wouldn't be right. Plus I have nothing else to do with myself at the moment except play Xbox or drink paint thinner (that's Wycombe for you).
So I enter the cinema, told the loudmouth kids to shut the fuck up (seriously they were like on a first date or something...talking about the kaiser chiefs, I didn't pay money to hear them talk shit), and sat in the dark waiting to see what Ron Howard was going to bring with this film sequel (book prequel).
Jesus.
Angels and Demons is an overlong, dull thriller that thinks it's more intelligent than it actually is. The films main plot is a very typical, bog standard thriller. If your a fan of something like Poirot you've already seen something far sharper (and shorter) than what you see here. This film is thriller by numbers. But what Dan Brown has done is wrap the film in a large catalogue of facts (read: dubious bullshit that sounds important) to hide the fact that what he's got is a naff direct to video movie. It's like taking the dumbass school jock, letting him hold A brief history of time and giving him a pair of glasses. The new boy may be fooled but the teachers ain't buying it.
I went into this film with no knowledge of the book, but guessed what would happen very quickly. I'm no (enter clever person name here) but I could see the protracted movements of the character coming a mile off. Unless of course when they do stupid things. Case in point Our "hero" Robert Langdon (amusingly played by Tom Hanks) is stuck in a glass archive room with a guard (with a full loaded gun). They are running out of oxygen and are looking frantically for something to smash the glass. With the information I've given you, what do you do? Yeah. They don't do it. In fact they wait until their lungs are almost completely filled with Carbon Dioxide until they do. They escape, they're both relieved and I die a little inside because i made a pact with myself never to walk out of a movie ever.
When characters aren't being idiots, they're explain huge sections of plot ad nausea for us. Fair enough it's probably loyal to the book but these people have got time to do this. Why? Because they are on a time limit. The amount of historical "facts" that these guys go through while some poor priest is dying just doesn't ring true. The vast amount of exposition took me out of the story and took away the tension, as a friend noted to me "there's a bomb LET'S GET TO THE LIBRARY!". Remember Hitchcock's theory on suspense? Well it appears that Howard forgot to look it up, which is frustrating due the fact that earlier in the year he was director of the tense and thrilling Frost/Nixon. But how can i blame him, he's got to work with sub par material.
I've gone on too long now as I will be quick with the acting which is bland to say the least. While Hanks is lucky enough to get the few humorous lines, he spends most of the time grimacing like a constipated pitbull. Everyone else is either as plain as Vanilla (Ayelet Zurer has NOTHING TO DO) or completely transparent. There's two other more recognisable names (in western world) I will not mention but they do nothing to make the viewer second guess their actions. In fact thanks to the script as well as their piss poor displays...you might not even be sure what their actions are.
It's decided to cut the review short as anyone reading this will be as sick of this review as much as I was sick of the film (especially if you actually enjoyed A&D). I didn't even get on to the preposterous third act which wants the viewer to make a leap of faith so great it would make the grand canyon look like a small fruit bowl.
The Da Vinci Code had quite a poor reception when it opened 3 years ago at Cannes. As snooty as those french bastards are, sometimes they get it spot on. To me it's no surprise that this didn't show this time around.
Director: Ron Howard
Screenplay: David Koepp, Akiva Goldsman
Starring: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Stellan Skarsgård, Ayelet Zurer
I read The Da Vinci Code and thought it was ok in a trashy sort of way. It read like a goosebumps book and I got though it quickly. The film on the other hand was long hard slog. Much like really bad drunken sex where both parties aren't really into it, but plough though both their clothes are off. I didn't read Angels and Demons because life's too short and why read airport thrillers when I could read material that's far more testing and creative.
Why did I sit through Angels and Demons may you ask? Because an arsehole film blogger I have to. It's one of the bigger films and to have it omitted just wouldn't be right. Plus I have nothing else to do with myself at the moment except play Xbox or drink paint thinner (that's Wycombe for you).
So I enter the cinema, told the loudmouth kids to shut the fuck up (seriously they were like on a first date or something...talking about the kaiser chiefs, I didn't pay money to hear them talk shit), and sat in the dark waiting to see what Ron Howard was going to bring with this film sequel (book prequel).
Jesus.
Angels and Demons is an overlong, dull thriller that thinks it's more intelligent than it actually is. The films main plot is a very typical, bog standard thriller. If your a fan of something like Poirot you've already seen something far sharper (and shorter) than what you see here. This film is thriller by numbers. But what Dan Brown has done is wrap the film in a large catalogue of facts (read: dubious bullshit that sounds important) to hide the fact that what he's got is a naff direct to video movie. It's like taking the dumbass school jock, letting him hold A brief history of time and giving him a pair of glasses. The new boy may be fooled but the teachers ain't buying it.
I went into this film with no knowledge of the book, but guessed what would happen very quickly. I'm no (enter clever person name here) but I could see the protracted movements of the character coming a mile off. Unless of course when they do stupid things. Case in point Our "hero" Robert Langdon (amusingly played by Tom Hanks) is stuck in a glass archive room with a guard (with a full loaded gun). They are running out of oxygen and are looking frantically for something to smash the glass. With the information I've given you, what do you do? Yeah. They don't do it. In fact they wait until their lungs are almost completely filled with Carbon Dioxide until they do. They escape, they're both relieved and I die a little inside because i made a pact with myself never to walk out of a movie ever.
When characters aren't being idiots, they're explain huge sections of plot ad nausea for us. Fair enough it's probably loyal to the book but these people have got time to do this. Why? Because they are on a time limit. The amount of historical "facts" that these guys go through while some poor priest is dying just doesn't ring true. The vast amount of exposition took me out of the story and took away the tension, as a friend noted to me "there's a bomb LET'S GET TO THE LIBRARY!". Remember Hitchcock's theory on suspense? Well it appears that Howard forgot to look it up, which is frustrating due the fact that earlier in the year he was director of the tense and thrilling Frost/Nixon. But how can i blame him, he's got to work with sub par material.
I've gone on too long now as I will be quick with the acting which is bland to say the least. While Hanks is lucky enough to get the few humorous lines, he spends most of the time grimacing like a constipated pitbull. Everyone else is either as plain as Vanilla (Ayelet Zurer has NOTHING TO DO) or completely transparent. There's two other more recognisable names (in western world) I will not mention but they do nothing to make the viewer second guess their actions. In fact thanks to the script as well as their piss poor displays...you might not even be sure what their actions are.
It's decided to cut the review short as anyone reading this will be as sick of this review as much as I was sick of the film (especially if you actually enjoyed A&D). I didn't even get on to the preposterous third act which wants the viewer to make a leap of faith so great it would make the grand canyon look like a small fruit bowl.
The Da Vinci Code had quite a poor reception when it opened 3 years ago at Cannes. As snooty as those french bastards are, sometimes they get it spot on. To me it's no surprise that this didn't show this time around.
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Review: Star Trek
Year: 2009
Director: JJ Abrams
Screenplay: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman.
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Simon Pegg, Bruce Greenwood, Leonard Nimoy
I'm not a trekkie. I found the original Star Trek series dated and I've never sat through any of the films all the way through. The documentary "Trekkie's" also helped cement my lack of interest in the series as despite being a great movie it showed that some of those fans are FUCKING WEIRD. Some people have to follow something I guess...but seriously. So if I'm not a Trekkie why watch Star Trek? Because the reboot is created with bastards like me in mind.
As a horror film fan, I can understand why the "hardcore" fans get all arsey about their baby being exploited. I've had to sit through some dubious remakes in my time, and it is frustrating. Halloween gave Micheal Myers a cliched white trash childhood, while The Ring believes that an audience needs everything explained to them. The curiosity about what the bastards have done to your flick kills you and you end up watching a pale imitation of something you really loved. It's horrible but it's what film nerds do.
Star Trek however, appears to be created by people who seem to respect the original material. Respect it enough that they have done their best to keep "canon" intact while giving no nothings like myself a chance to get involved with the USS Enterprise crew. The result is a well paced, visually arousing blockbuster filled to the brim with a humor and kept interesting by it's entertaining cast.
The film has the odd flaw of course, for one the film's villain Nero (Bana) is marginalized quite a bit while some of the plot points are incredibly inconsistent (I'm talking about the black holes that can do what ever they want.) but Abrams has made a movie which is FUN. It's easy to nit pick at the obvious fact that Star Trek has been "sexed up" but for me, Abrams' rejig captures an essence of the original series. I said before I know nothing about the series but I was quite surprised about the amount of in jokes I got. I also enjoyed the fact that many aspects of the show are kept within the film. Hecklers have bitched at great length about the film being made for "yoof" and blah blah blah. However Abrams has kept much of the Star Trek spirit within the film. It's this spirit that seperates this from other remakes, reboots and the like. Another small issue is the action, which is formidable but not as outstanding as i would have hoped. With this said it's worth watching to see John Cho fucking people up with a sword*.
But my negative issues with the film are tiny compared to what I enjoyed about the film. Star Trek clocks in at a hefty 127 mins but is never boring (save a small lull in the middle of the film). The films main conflict between Spock and Kirk is given a strong foundation for the inevitable sequels, while Abrams manages to touch on views of race with more class than George Lucas ever did.
I also found Star Trek to be extremely funny. Every one liner or crafty in joke hits home, while every main cast member pull off the humor with a huge amount of charm. The banter they bounce off each other doesn't feel forced in any way. Yes, at times there's a high level of chesse, but it's surprisingly refreshing in a film world where many summer adaptations are starting to take themselves VERY seriously.
Acting wise, I could not pick a weak link. I was impressed with everyone on board and couldn't pick who I wanted to spend more time with. Chris Pine is confident, brash and convincing as Kirk, Zachary Quinto is a dead on Spock, while Zoe Saldana plays a spunky Uhura. Simon Pegg's dubious Scottish accent is forgiven due to his great comic timing and Karl Urban is a revelation as "Bones". I also have nothing but superlatives to say about John Cho, Anton Yelchin and the intense (although underused) Eric Bana.
Like I said before I am not a Trekkie. Until a week ago I would have said a Kobayashi Maru is a Chinese take away dish. But Star Trek is such a refreshing and entertaining flick i will be adding the Original Series to my love film post haste, and that I say to any naysayer, can only be a good thing.
*While I wrote that line about the action I forgot the opening sequence which I will describe as awesome.
Director: JJ Abrams
Screenplay: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman.
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Simon Pegg, Bruce Greenwood, Leonard Nimoy
I'm not a trekkie. I found the original Star Trek series dated and I've never sat through any of the films all the way through. The documentary "Trekkie's" also helped cement my lack of interest in the series as despite being a great movie it showed that some of those fans are FUCKING WEIRD. Some people have to follow something I guess...but seriously. So if I'm not a Trekkie why watch Star Trek? Because the reboot is created with bastards like me in mind.
As a horror film fan, I can understand why the "hardcore" fans get all arsey about their baby being exploited. I've had to sit through some dubious remakes in my time, and it is frustrating. Halloween gave Micheal Myers a cliched white trash childhood, while The Ring believes that an audience needs everything explained to them. The curiosity about what the bastards have done to your flick kills you and you end up watching a pale imitation of something you really loved. It's horrible but it's what film nerds do.
Star Trek however, appears to be created by people who seem to respect the original material. Respect it enough that they have done their best to keep "canon" intact while giving no nothings like myself a chance to get involved with the USS Enterprise crew. The result is a well paced, visually arousing blockbuster filled to the brim with a humor and kept interesting by it's entertaining cast.
The film has the odd flaw of course, for one the film's villain Nero (Bana) is marginalized quite a bit while some of the plot points are incredibly inconsistent (I'm talking about the black holes that can do what ever they want.) but Abrams has made a movie which is FUN. It's easy to nit pick at the obvious fact that Star Trek has been "sexed up" but for me, Abrams' rejig captures an essence of the original series. I said before I know nothing about the series but I was quite surprised about the amount of in jokes I got. I also enjoyed the fact that many aspects of the show are kept within the film. Hecklers have bitched at great length about the film being made for "yoof" and blah blah blah. However Abrams has kept much of the Star Trek spirit within the film. It's this spirit that seperates this from other remakes, reboots and the like. Another small issue is the action, which is formidable but not as outstanding as i would have hoped. With this said it's worth watching to see John Cho fucking people up with a sword*.
But my negative issues with the film are tiny compared to what I enjoyed about the film. Star Trek clocks in at a hefty 127 mins but is never boring (save a small lull in the middle of the film). The films main conflict between Spock and Kirk is given a strong foundation for the inevitable sequels, while Abrams manages to touch on views of race with more class than George Lucas ever did.
I also found Star Trek to be extremely funny. Every one liner or crafty in joke hits home, while every main cast member pull off the humor with a huge amount of charm. The banter they bounce off each other doesn't feel forced in any way. Yes, at times there's a high level of chesse, but it's surprisingly refreshing in a film world where many summer adaptations are starting to take themselves VERY seriously.
Acting wise, I could not pick a weak link. I was impressed with everyone on board and couldn't pick who I wanted to spend more time with. Chris Pine is confident, brash and convincing as Kirk, Zachary Quinto is a dead on Spock, while Zoe Saldana plays a spunky Uhura. Simon Pegg's dubious Scottish accent is forgiven due to his great comic timing and Karl Urban is a revelation as "Bones". I also have nothing but superlatives to say about John Cho, Anton Yelchin and the intense (although underused) Eric Bana.
Like I said before I am not a Trekkie. Until a week ago I would have said a Kobayashi Maru is a Chinese take away dish. But Star Trek is such a refreshing and entertaining flick i will be adding the Original Series to my love film post haste, and that I say to any naysayer, can only be a good thing.
*While I wrote that line about the action I forgot the opening sequence which I will describe as awesome.
Friday, 15 May 2009
The Road Trailer is FINALLY up!
Yes it's been delayed, but the film adaptation Cormac McCathy's The Road finally has it's trailer up! Directed by John Hillcoat (maker of the SUPERB film The Proposition), The Road is a apocalyptic, eco, road western involving a father (played by Viggo Mortensen) and his son surviving in a world that has been savaged by an unknown environmental disaster.
Now while the marketers have gone and displayed the film has an "I am Legend" end of the world movie. Reports say much different, any anyone whose seen/read The Road or No Country for Old Men will know what they're into. For me I can't wait to see if it's as brutally honest as the book.
So while the trailer looks conventional....the material is anything but.
Now while the marketers have gone and displayed the film has an "I am Legend" end of the world movie. Reports say much different, any anyone whose seen/read The Road or No Country for Old Men will know what they're into. For me I can't wait to see if it's as brutally honest as the book.
So while the trailer looks conventional....the material is anything but.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Megan Fox is too hot for hollywood
Megan Fox has been making a lot of headline lately but the one headline that really caught my eye is this one: Fox Slams 'Superficial' Hollywood
RIGHT ON SISTER! It's about time someone came out and spoke about this. Hollywood has dubious double standards and it good that she brought this up...however it's hard to take what she says seriously due to this:
Your big break was Transformers....your not fooling anyone!
RIGHT ON SISTER! It's about time someone came out and spoke about this. Hollywood has dubious double standards and it good that she brought this up...however it's hard to take what she says seriously due to this:
Your big break was Transformers....your not fooling anyone!
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Review: Anvil! The Story of Anvil
Year: 2008
Director: Sacha Gervasi
Starring: Steve "Lips" Kudlow, Robb Reiner
Being in the arts is hard. So hard that most people give up when their still quite young. They give up and start writing miserable blogs about artists and creators that are actually successful.....er......
I digress.
It's hard to make it in the artistic world and once you make it, it's hard to stay on top. Fame is a cruel bitchmaker which straddles it's helpless slaves and rides them like a drunk 18 year old on a mechanical bull. But many still crave the spotlight and at one point it looked like Anvil, a Canadian metal band had said spotlight; having moderate success with their brand of metal, supporting Bands such as Bon Jovi. Anvil tells us of a band who looked like they could have gone to to great things if it wasn't for a cruel twist of fate. In 1984, the thrash metal "big four*" came through and made metal a big thing, and somehow Anvil were left on the wayside. The film hints that it may be the fact that they were from Canada that made things difficult, but nothing is justified.
Skip to the present and Anvil are STILL around...well two of the original band members: the Lead singer "Lips" and drummer Robb Reiner . They are in medial jobs (well Lips is while we know nothing about Robb) but still live by their vow to rock until they drop. Despite being in their 50's, their quest for true fame lingers on 30 years after forming.
Critically lauded and rightly so Anvil is a heartbreaking film about two men who just simply don't know when to quit. Many have talked about how funny it is but within some of the films funniest lines come the most heart wrenching moments. What makes Anvil so watchable is the fact that the two leads are totally devoted to each other (read co-dependent) and will do anything to achieve a dream which even their long suffering wives have released, may have faded a long time ago. They're unrelenting in their pursuit, they know what they want and are unlikely to compromise for anyone especially the A&R men that hold the keys to the doors that the two desperately want them to open.
But their blinkered perspective along with their bizarrely youthful optimism, shows you why they are where they are. The first half provides the most laughs we follow the group on a tour with a naive promoter who has booked them in clubs all over Europe because of her love of the band. She can hardly communicate with them, she forgets simple things such as double checking the travel, and is so bad that it is agreed with by the band and a fan (a lawyer) who happens to find them at a dive of a bar that they were playing (and didn't get paid for) that she is "bad management".
You get the feeling that Anvil have had a lot of this in the 30 plus years they've been around and you laugh at the absurdity but each giggle is a painful one. The film has been likened to Spinal Tap (a shot of an amp going to 11 and a trip to Stonehenge help matters), but plays out more like Chris Smith's American Movie (1999). It's a story a screenwriter couldn't make up. Nothing seems to phase these guys and their drive is admirable (if not slightly insane). But what makes this documentary a winner for me is the fact that due to their unwavering point of view, their reason for soldiering on is because they love music and they love who they play for.
One of the reasons Metalica: Some sort of Monster is painful to watch is your watching a band who've done it all and seem to have no idea what to do with themselves any more**. Their fame has clouded their judgement and their in house fighting appear to merely be petty squabbles for power. Anvil fight because they're passionate and have something they know someone, somewhere will love. They have no pretension, no pomposity, and are clearly focus on making a person rock to their music. These days finding a band like that is hard to find.
*The Big Four: Metallica, Slayer, Anthrax, Megadeth
**I say this about Metallica due to when Some Kind of Monster Came Out, I have been told that Death Magnetic is v good.
Director: Sacha Gervasi
Starring: Steve "Lips" Kudlow, Robb Reiner
Being in the arts is hard. So hard that most people give up when their still quite young. They give up and start writing miserable blogs about artists and creators that are actually successful.....er......
I digress.
It's hard to make it in the artistic world and once you make it, it's hard to stay on top. Fame is a cruel bitchmaker which straddles it's helpless slaves and rides them like a drunk 18 year old on a mechanical bull. But many still crave the spotlight and at one point it looked like Anvil, a Canadian metal band had said spotlight; having moderate success with their brand of metal, supporting Bands such as Bon Jovi. Anvil tells us of a band who looked like they could have gone to to great things if it wasn't for a cruel twist of fate. In 1984, the thrash metal "big four*" came through and made metal a big thing, and somehow Anvil were left on the wayside. The film hints that it may be the fact that they were from Canada that made things difficult, but nothing is justified.
Skip to the present and Anvil are STILL around...well two of the original band members: the Lead singer "Lips" and drummer Robb Reiner . They are in medial jobs (well Lips is while we know nothing about Robb) but still live by their vow to rock until they drop. Despite being in their 50's, their quest for true fame lingers on 30 years after forming.
Critically lauded and rightly so Anvil is a heartbreaking film about two men who just simply don't know when to quit. Many have talked about how funny it is but within some of the films funniest lines come the most heart wrenching moments. What makes Anvil so watchable is the fact that the two leads are totally devoted to each other (read co-dependent) and will do anything to achieve a dream which even their long suffering wives have released, may have faded a long time ago. They're unrelenting in their pursuit, they know what they want and are unlikely to compromise for anyone especially the A&R men that hold the keys to the doors that the two desperately want them to open.
But their blinkered perspective along with their bizarrely youthful optimism, shows you why they are where they are. The first half provides the most laughs we follow the group on a tour with a naive promoter who has booked them in clubs all over Europe because of her love of the band. She can hardly communicate with them, she forgets simple things such as double checking the travel, and is so bad that it is agreed with by the band and a fan (a lawyer) who happens to find them at a dive of a bar that they were playing (and didn't get paid for) that she is "bad management".
You get the feeling that Anvil have had a lot of this in the 30 plus years they've been around and you laugh at the absurdity but each giggle is a painful one. The film has been likened to Spinal Tap (a shot of an amp going to 11 and a trip to Stonehenge help matters), but plays out more like Chris Smith's American Movie (1999). It's a story a screenwriter couldn't make up. Nothing seems to phase these guys and their drive is admirable (if not slightly insane). But what makes this documentary a winner for me is the fact that due to their unwavering point of view, their reason for soldiering on is because they love music and they love who they play for.
One of the reasons Metalica: Some sort of Monster is painful to watch is your watching a band who've done it all and seem to have no idea what to do with themselves any more**. Their fame has clouded their judgement and their in house fighting appear to merely be petty squabbles for power. Anvil fight because they're passionate and have something they know someone, somewhere will love. They have no pretension, no pomposity, and are clearly focus on making a person rock to their music. These days finding a band like that is hard to find.
*The Big Four: Metallica, Slayer, Anthrax, Megadeth
**I say this about Metallica due to when Some Kind of Monster Came Out, I have been told that Death Magnetic is v good.
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Year: 2009
Director: Gavin Hood
Screenplay: Skip Woods, David Benioff
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Ryan Renolds, Danny Huston#
Film Synopsis is here
So we all know about the whole hoo ha about the fucking work print being leaked, the reviewer who watched it getting fired and the rest of it. Lets feel bad for a studio trying to make an buck on a popular franchise. And lets also lambaste the same studio for insulting it's paying audience by giving us a weak ass film that almost deserved to be watched for free.
No don't get me wrong.I didn't expect it to be a masterpiece or classic, I didn't even expect Wolverine to be the exuberant film that X2 is. But I did expect it to be fun. I didn't want it to take the piss out of me for watching it. I expected the filmmakers to release that I have watched The x-men series to see that I would invest time and effort into watching their movie.
While I understand a film like this wishes to stand it's own two feet and not need the help of their counterparts to prop them up, I don't want aspects of story changed willy nilly just for the sake of it. Wolverine is full of little issues that make the film more ridiculous than it already is. This is a film about a indestructible man....silly right? Well at least make it coincide with the other silly films featuring said indestructible man! The screenplay is full of inaccuracies that made my viewing of the film and depressing one. Much like Lucas when he wrote the "already written" prequels, we get a screenplay that has appeared to have missed the very films that it's based on. I won't go into too much detail but I will say: HOW DO YOU KNOW THE BULLETS WILL DO THAT? When a film gives me questions like this I get annoyed. The reason: Lazy ass writing.
The lazy ass writing also gives a shed load of characters with nothing to do. The screenplay gives us cliched cheese ball lines that were amusing the first time you heard them (back in 1989) but not any more. We are giving a script that reminds me that even if your film is a big dumb actioner, you still need structure, you still need to be witty and you still need to give a damn about who your writing about. I saw none of that here.
But what about the action? the effect shots that were missing from the bootleg etc...Well they're nothing special. In fact expect for the last climatic fight, they're rather flat and forgetful. The CGI is weak and looks far better in X2 (6 years ago) than now.
However, despite this being one of the worst films I've seen this year, some of the acting was very enjoyable. Liev Schreiber has a great time chewing on scenery as Sabretooth and is easily the best thing about the film. Hugh Jackman plays what I can only say is a softer Wolverine than before, but in softening the character he loses some of the the ruggedness that made him so watchable in the first two Xmen films. Ryan Reynolds shows why a Deadpool film could be a great laugh in a role that is nothing more than extended cameo. Talyor Kitch plays fan boy favourite with a lot of urgency but as a character with no real purpose other than to make comic fans grin, we find him quite wasted. Danny Huston does his best Brian Cox impression and ultimately fails, which is a shame as I find him quite an overlooked actor.
Wolverine is big and dumb, but it has forgotten it's fun at the door. Despite having some OTT comic book moments and it's light tone, it has none of the identity issues and depth which made the first two xmen so memorable and none of the spectacle that Brett Ratner tried to place in X-men the last stand. In the end the film is the most lackluster entry to the franchise. The imdb ratings say something different from what I've said and that's fine but lets just say I'm happy enough never to grace the film with my presence again.
Director: Gavin Hood
Screenplay: Skip Woods, David Benioff
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Ryan Renolds, Danny Huston#
Film Synopsis is here
So we all know about the whole hoo ha about the fucking work print being leaked, the reviewer who watched it getting fired and the rest of it. Lets feel bad for a studio trying to make an buck on a popular franchise. And lets also lambaste the same studio for insulting it's paying audience by giving us a weak ass film that almost deserved to be watched for free.
No don't get me wrong.I didn't expect it to be a masterpiece or classic, I didn't even expect Wolverine to be the exuberant film that X2 is. But I did expect it to be fun. I didn't want it to take the piss out of me for watching it. I expected the filmmakers to release that I have watched The x-men series to see that I would invest time and effort into watching their movie.
While I understand a film like this wishes to stand it's own two feet and not need the help of their counterparts to prop them up, I don't want aspects of story changed willy nilly just for the sake of it. Wolverine is full of little issues that make the film more ridiculous than it already is. This is a film about a indestructible man....silly right? Well at least make it coincide with the other silly films featuring said indestructible man! The screenplay is full of inaccuracies that made my viewing of the film and depressing one. Much like Lucas when he wrote the "already written" prequels, we get a screenplay that has appeared to have missed the very films that it's based on. I won't go into too much detail but I will say: HOW DO YOU KNOW THE BULLETS WILL DO THAT? When a film gives me questions like this I get annoyed. The reason: Lazy ass writing.
The lazy ass writing also gives a shed load of characters with nothing to do. The screenplay gives us cliched cheese ball lines that were amusing the first time you heard them (back in 1989) but not any more. We are giving a script that reminds me that even if your film is a big dumb actioner, you still need structure, you still need to be witty and you still need to give a damn about who your writing about. I saw none of that here.
But what about the action? the effect shots that were missing from the bootleg etc...Well they're nothing special. In fact expect for the last climatic fight, they're rather flat and forgetful. The CGI is weak and looks far better in X2 (6 years ago) than now.
However, despite this being one of the worst films I've seen this year, some of the acting was very enjoyable. Liev Schreiber has a great time chewing on scenery as Sabretooth and is easily the best thing about the film. Hugh Jackman plays what I can only say is a softer Wolverine than before, but in softening the character he loses some of the the ruggedness that made him so watchable in the first two Xmen films. Ryan Reynolds shows why a Deadpool film could be a great laugh in a role that is nothing more than extended cameo. Talyor Kitch plays fan boy favourite with a lot of urgency but as a character with no real purpose other than to make comic fans grin, we find him quite wasted. Danny Huston does his best Brian Cox impression and ultimately fails, which is a shame as I find him quite an overlooked actor.
Wolverine is big and dumb, but it has forgotten it's fun at the door. Despite having some OTT comic book moments and it's light tone, it has none of the identity issues and depth which made the first two xmen so memorable and none of the spectacle that Brett Ratner tried to place in X-men the last stand. In the end the film is the most lackluster entry to the franchise. The imdb ratings say something different from what I've said and that's fine but lets just say I'm happy enough never to grace the film with my presence again.
Friday, 1 May 2009
Russell Brand to become Fred (Drop Dead Fred Remake)
= 
I have a love/hate relationship with Russell Brand. I had work experience for a company and people HATED him. Mostly because it seemed the fame had got to his head and he kept fucking around with said company (who were paying to get him in).
I'm not a massive fan of his comedy and find it quite bland, and I don't find him as outrageous as people would like to think. Compare him to this guy:
Yeah...that prank call? Nothing compared to that.
However his performance in Forgetting Sarah Marshall was pretty damn funny. It seems that give the man the right material and he seems more then bearable.
So I found some news on the net that Brand may be in talks for Universal's remake for Drop Dead Fred.
The film was a critical and commercial flop but became a cult hit with quite a few fans (me included). Now the idea for a remake of this film is a good one in my eyes. The film is dated, didn't do too well and could easily find a bigger audience now that attitudes and tastes have changed.
I will say that Brand as the titular Fred? Seems a bit lazy to me I would rather Nick Frost instead:
I reckon Frost as the imaginary Fred would be hilarious. The humor would be different as well as opposed as the easy option. With this said the makers are stating: "The take for the new "Fred" is to make a film in the tone of "Beetlejuice," building a universe around the concept of imaginary friends. Brand would play the trouble-making pal."
Brand and Beetle juice? If written well then this could be quite amusing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)