Article: The Lonely Death of Dick Hallorann

Of Course Spoilers

The death of Scatman Crothers’ character Dick Hallorann in Stanley Kubrick’s seminal film adaptation of The Shining (1980) is possibly one of the most isolated deaths in mainstream horror cinema. He travels through brutal, treacherous terrain to heed the telepathic beckoned call of a terrified young boy. He never makes it. Moments after he reaches his destination, he is felled by a swinging axe to the chest. His demise is swift, violent and above all else, it’s near pointless. In other horror films, ones not made by obsessive, precise auteurs, such a death is often considered laughable. The most notable parody of The Shining lies in The Simpson’s Treehouse of Horror V (1994), in which Groundskeeper Willy is murdered by an insane Homer Simpson in a similar style to what occurs in the film. Hallorann’s death can easily be mocked. For myself, this is perhaps part of the sadness. This is a character whom we see near the start of the movie delivering a careful exposition of ‘The Shining’ to a fretful young scallywag in a poorly disguised Chekhov’s gun only to have the bullet skew wildly when it is fired. Danny Torrance (Danny Lloyd), the telepathic child, who uses his ‘shine’ to summon the wilful wannabe hero is only left with mental scars as his deranged father Jack Torrance (Jack Nicolson) drives an emergency axe through the elderly man’s chest mere moments after arriving back to his place of work, in a desperate attempt to save the child and his mother from the evil which has taken over the mind and body of Jack.

Dick Hallorann’s death is a tragedy in The Shining that feels easily forgotten and ignored, due to the grander context. Hallorann himself is only in a few scenes. In the beginning, he establishes himself as a person of trust. His final moments are devastating because the film invests so much time of his travelling to his final destination. When you isolate Hallorann’s time in the film, half of his scenes are spent with him navigating his way back to the snowbound overlook hotel. He travels by plane. He drives during the final third of his journey. We’re still aware of how long it took Jack Torrance to get to The Overlook and that was without the poor weather conditions which blight Dick. A few moments after Hallorann arrives, Jack swings an axe cruelly into Dick’s chest. The struggle is brief, the wound is severe and Hallorann’s heroic gesture, in which he came to aid Danny and Wendy, is quickly snuffed Out.

It’s easy to giggle at the futile effort. The film seems to set up a greater confrontation involving Hallorann and Torrance. His earlier, expositional scenes suggest that his knowledge of ‘The Shining’: a telepathic link between people, will become key. It is said shining that Danny uses to send out an SOS call to Hallorann. This gift is powerful enough to give Danny an aspect of foresight. He witnesses excruciating scenes of terror through this clairvoyant link. Elevators filled with blood. Dead bodies of the past strewn on the floor. However, the events which cause his dad to run riot and have Danny scarper as far as his legs can carry him, also ensure that the failed heroism by Hallorann is in vain.

It’s a difficult death even despite its futility. In both Stanley Kubrick’s film and Stephen Kings novel, the attack dutifully notes Hallorann’s race. Before the attack, Jack is advised by a spiteful spirit; Delbert Grady that a “nigger cook” is on his way to complicate the matter of Jack correcting his Wife; Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and their talented son. The performance by Phillip Stone as Grady has always been memorable to me due to the venom of the exchange which takes place in the men’s bathroom with Nickleson’s Jack. It’s here where the severity of Hallorann’s demise hits home, practically for me as it’s in this moment that becomes one of the first moments of explicit racism in a movie that I’ve witnessed. People often get frustrated with film adaptations as they place a face to a character that they find hard for their imaginations to shake off. Stone’s face and aggression have always been etched into my mind from a young age. But conversation which takes place also compounds an illicit agreement between two white men, to kill the film’s only truly likable character.

In the film Room 237 (2012); a highly subjective documentary showcasing how the film is viewed by various analysts, one theory establishes that the overt references in The Shining make the film about the genocide of Native Americans and American imperialism, with one of the film’s main highlights being that of an opening sequence involving hotel manager Stuart Ullman (Barry Nelson) mentioning that the Overlook Hotel is built on an ancient Indian burial ground. This becomes a challenging factor when we consider the films mysterious ending in Jack, the man who has “always been the caretaker” is seen in the last frame of the film captured in a picture which dates back to the 1920s. Hallorann, the only person of colour within the film, may not be native American, but the theory of his killing is perhaps due to the hands of a white man who may be possessed by spirits of America’s well known racist past make an impactful indictment of Torrance’s foul dismissal of the kindly African-American who treated his son to some ice cream. It’s possible to consider The Shining as a film which conspires to kill the film’s most solitary character, it’s only black character, through insidious white collusion.

Hallorann’s death conjures even more provocative elements when we consider his place within the film. His early exposition, as well as his psychic talent, could easily consider him the fabled “magical negro”. The sexless black stereotype whose role is to give the white protagonists value through his magical abilities. This is a cook whose purpose is to serve the rich white folk who come to indulge in the overlook, while his sole motivation in the film is to come to the aid of Danny, which he fails. When Hallorann receives the call from Danny, consider the mise en scene surrounding him. Framed pictures of young, naked ebony women are hung around his walls, but there’s very little about Hallorann himself to suggest that he’s a sexual person. In watching the film again, this scene is most indicative of the loneliness of Hallorann. Having explained the Shining ability to Danny, this seemingly asexual man, now surrounded by sensual imagery, has his sole purpose by this point in the film to be marked for death. To be killed by a man whose cavorting with naked bathtub spirits allows him to be possessed. Yes, we know that the woman who seduces Jack in room 237 turns out to be a rotting corpse ghoul, but still…

Hallorann is unceremoniously dispatched by Jack after hours of travel to reach his destination point. His body is not found by Danny, the boy he strived to save, but Wendy who’s bulging eyes cannot comprehend what she is seeing. Considering that what she’s seen only a few moments before have already been difficult to logically compartmentalise. It is Wendy who sees the elevator of blood in (her) reality over Danny’s vision. She finds bloodied guests laundering about the halls when it is only supposed to be her family inhabiting the hotel. But it’s the short sharp crash zoom to Hallorann’s body which has her really lose her proverbial poop.

Duvall’s Wendy has really taken a battering from detractors of the film over the years as for the most part she is nothing but a shrinking violet, yet it is through her face as well as Danny’s in which we see much of the film’s terror. Duvall has such an unconventional movie star features and it’s no surprise that Altman used her in tandem with Sissy Spacek for the evocative 1977 film 3 Women. Spacek who featured in Carrie another adaptation of Stephen King also holds the same characteristic that makes Duvall stand out. Those large eyes. They see all.

I bring this up because it’s her face, those eyes that water with fear when Wendy finally sees apparitions. She is also the only person who sees Hallorann’s lifeless corpse lying in the reception area. It is one of the last sights she sees in the hotel itself. By the time she sees it, she’s witnessed so many bizarre supernatural phenomena that she may not believe that the body is real. That’s the sadness. The last person to see Hallorann on the day of his death may be too wigged out to even believe he’s there. Struck apart by race, sex and sheer distance. Dick’s body may have been considered as much as an apparition as the ghostly guests waltzing the hallways. He dies by himself in the hotel’s reception. What a lonely way to go.

Review: High-Rise

Year: 2016
Director: Ben Wheatley
Screenplay: Amy Jump
Starring: Tom Hiddleston, Jeremy Irons, Sienna Miller, Luke Evans, Elisabeth Moss, James Purefoy, Keeley Hawes

Synopsis is here:

The blandly branded products that litter the flatly lit supermarket hint at Alex Cox's Repo Man (1984). The setting as well as the loss of mental faculties and civility hark back to Cronenberg's Shivers (1975). However, at the dark heart of Ben Wheatley’s High-Rise seems to nod more than once to The Shining (1980). It is much like Kubrick's adaptation in that it's an altered take on a well-known book. The isolated setting and claustrophobic feel also owe a lot to the auteur’s work. Only here, the ghosts in the machines and manic possession have little to do with the supernatural, they are man made.

Those who haven’t picked up J.G Ballard’s disconcerting novel, may find themselves at a loss to Wheatley’s new feature. A lurid tale of materialism gone mad, High-Rise follows Robert Laing, a grieving doctor who moves into a brand new, luxury High-Rise skyscraper with a broad band of professionals. Along with the other residents, he quickly becomes seduced in a world of all night parties, classist hierarchies and disintegrating social and moral etiquettes. The film is never truly explicit about why such a decent into madness would occur. Like all of Wheatley’s work, High-Rise slices at the specifics. Yet, like Ballard’s impish novel, it never feels hard to peer in-between the lines.

Those who know Ballard may feel that his caustic, matter of fact prose and eye for detail is lacking slightly. While kudos must be given to screenwriter; Amy Jump, for squeezing as much juice out of the orange as she can. There is, of course, as with so many novels, always text that can often help fill in the cracks and spike the imagination. Ballard’s canny way of getting his unhinged characters to justify the insanity as somewhat normal, is hard to replicate. It’s hard to imagine anyone being to get it right. Although I do feel that David Cronenberg, who dealt with Ballard with his adaptation Crash (1996), manages to capture the cynical, distancing tone and psychology of such characters a little better than Wheatley, whose High-Rise holds one or two elements within it not to have its viewer shirk with total despair despite its brutality.

That said, Wheatley along with his long time running cinematographer buddy Laurie Rose, not only capture the feel of the 70’s with flair, but capture the book images that I thought only resided within my head. The details in the design and setting along with the execution of certain sequences are near note perfect. The images linger long in the memory, as well as what they represent. Scenes such as the higher classes, debating with what to do with the rampant and primal filmmaker Richard Wilder (an excellent Luke Evans). Observing the richer types holding a high class party while having classical music covers of Abba tracks, nails the false belief that those at the top have over the bottom perfectly. That even popular culture must be "cultivated" correctly.

The decent into madness will lose some, but for me it was easy to tap into the film's observations on the culture of self. Looking at the behaviour in High Rise in both the film and book and watching at how politicians and celebrities act now feels even more relevant. Hell, watching High-Rise at times reminded me of the so-called "film twitter" at its most anarchic and base. A struggle between basement feeding bloggers (hello) and the "real" writers who only ever deal in snark.

Even the high-rise itself; a grinning beast of architecture, is the perfect metaphor for how many view today. Fear of our neighbours, modest grievances being the worst things in the world (first world problems). Classism running wild. High-Rise features much of this, although it's easy to see how some viewers will still question the logic of the film, despite the fact that even the characters themselves detail that reasoning accounts to very little.

The film does what decent Sci-fi should do. It finds the human element or as the cynical architect Anthony Royal (Jeremy Irons) remarks the “missing” element. High-Rise suggests that if given a utopia, our baser urges will help clamber to destroy it. I adore the fact that the film retains the book’s 70's setting, along with a white, middle-class population that still seeks to destroy itself. Not because I enjoy Caucasians tearing at each other, but because it highlights how easily the fear of the other is embraced. That if we're to have everything we ever wanted. We would still hunger. We would still rape. We would still destroy. All it takes is some decent time at the swimming pool.

Wheatley’s film is not only a return to form from his bizarre and distancing experiment A Field in England (2013), but it plays out as a cinematic representation of Marina Abramovic’s recent performance art, or even an update of Jane Elliott’s eye colour experiment. Ballard may still hold more acidity, however, Wheatley’s adaptation is a brutal reminder of how our desires of materialistic and the carnal can reduce us to the simplistic and primal beasts we try and hide with our so-called civility.

Review: Child 44

Director: Daniel Espinosa

Screenplay: Richard Price

Starring: Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Noomi Rapace, Joel Kinnaman, Paddy Considine, Jason Clarke, Vincent Cassel

Synopsis is here:

I often find myself getting into conversations of adaptation, with a good friend of mine whose and avid consumer of books and film. Our talks usually debate about how a film can keep hold of the book's spirit. It can never be the book. It’s not that medium, nor should it aspire to be. Not every element can make the translation. Filmmakers must traipse through the difficult task of pruning and trimming in order to gain the right fruits for the film to bear. Child 44 is a film in which clearly somebody wanted all the fruits to grow. Due to this there’s far much to pick. It is then when we yield rotten berries.

A telling review of the novel by Angus Macqueen, hints the story’s commercial aspirations, but also describes the writer Tom Rob Smith’s desire to encompass so much of Stalin’s Russia into the fiction, that it becomes difficult to take the book too seriously. While I cannot fully pass judgement on the novel. I can say that it’s hard not to feel similarly about the film.

Child 44 is quite simply a thriller that doesn’t thrill. It alludes to richness by placing forth a multitude of sub-plots, but does little to give them decent resolutions. It suggests relationships with depth, but does little to build on them. The film suffers from the same irritation that comes with Michael Bay’s Transformer Movies, in which length is believed to be a decent substitute for scale. The film's setting and historical background should provide intrigue. Yet this is clouded by drab conversations in dubious faux Russian accents and multiple scenes which grind the pace of the film to halt. Moments which should be revelations, never build to the vital discoveries the film purports them to be. This is mainly because the film never allows such moments to breathe. The elements of the overstuffed narrative come across just as cumbersome as the films clunky action set pieces. The film’s climax ends up in a muddy quagmire, which amused me, as this is how I felt about the piece in general.

Directed by Daniel Espinosa (Easy Money) is more than capable of crafting taut, commercial thrillers. Safe House (2012) is a solid example of that. Here, however, his talents seemed bogged down by a predictable screenplay (a rare misfire from scribe Richard Price), which holds a truckload of moving parts. Despite the valiant efforts of its brooding cast, so many of the film's characters feel on the periphery of the narrative. There’s a nagging feeling that one or two players had more moments left on the cutting room floor. Then again, this could have made Child 44 possibly longer. Which for myself, could have been more torture than being sent to a gulag. A contrived line? Perhaps. But no more than what Child 44 deserves. For the same price of a ticket, you could purchase Fritz Lang’s excellent M (1931) on Blu Ray, which not only deals with similar issues better, but is nearly 30 minutes shorter. The value of economy, eh? 

Review: Fifty Shades of Grey

Year: 2015

Director: Sam Taylor-Johnson

Screenplay: Kelly Marcel

Starring: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dorman

The Fifty Shades of Grey feature film arrives amidst massive hype, awkward promos and in-house fighting between the film’s director and the book's writer. Such fighting appears to be common with adaptation, but as Director Michael Haneke states in an interview about his 2000 psychosexual drama The Piano Teacher (and I paraphrase):

“You must be glad if you translate a third of the content as you can’t convey the richness of a novel which is 300 pages long.”

From what I’ve read of Fifty Shades, it seems clear that there’s little penetration (snigger) or richness to be found, with E.L James’ lead character, Anastasia Steele feeling like an awkward mixture of Mills & Boon and Robin from the 60’s Batman series. As a book, 50 Shades gives hope to crummy writers in that, however naff your writing can be, there’s still a chance you can make a bucket load of money (there’s hope for me yet).

Originally based on a piece of Twilight fan fiction, Fifty Shades of Grey, was originally described as “Mommy Porn” and while Sam Taylor Johnson’s cinematic adaptation may only really help compound such descriptions with its vanilla sex and antiqued gender views, I found it difficult not to admire its stylish production and knowing wit at certain points. It is taking on a film with no real richness to speak of, yet it’s at times, a slyer film than those who have been quick to debunk it say (several people react venomously to it while knowing very little). It's a film that's seeking a crowd of people who are asking for adult drama with a certain amount of titillation and of course escapism.

It’s a film that seems to acknowledge its sparkly vampire roots, opening to an ever-grey Seattle, which not only alludes to the looming shadow of one Mr Grey but also reminds us of Bella Swan’s Forks. Fifty Shades amusingly never really escapes the Twilight shadow, despite its adult leanings. It’s easy to see the similarities between the main couples in each of the first film entries. However, Johnson’s film feels far more playful with the material. The moment after Anastasia Steele leaves her first meeting with Christen Grey all hot and flustered, the heavens open outside and give her a cold shower. Dakota Johnson’s breathy performance has garnered a mixed response and yet it seems clear that both director and actress are aiming for a more pithy representation of the awkward inner monologue that features in the book. Hell, the film features the ludicrous close-ups of Anastasia nibbling on company pencils with the word Grey on them. So often the film understands what type of movie it really should be.

Frustratingly, the film’s source material hampers much of the playfulness. The character of Christian Grey is a manic pixie dream guy. Not only successful, talented and knowledgeable in nearly everything he touches (including her "sex"), but fantastically sculpted, and generically handsome. Anastasia’s sexual naivety is made to look even more dubious (in 2015) by the sheer fact that the two are so instantly compatible in bed. He is the type of guy that the fedora-wearing meninists can't stand. Wish fulfilment? Yes, but the plot’s explanation of Christian’s main flaw (which is dreadfully cliché and inaccurate when looked at along with his sexual preference) never gives us true insight. His manipulation of Anastasia through material goods and sex is displayed far more like perks than flaws. Only the agency and fightback of Anastasia’s character claws back some balance, although much like Bella Swan, all it takes is the raw sexual magnetism of Mr Grey to cloud her judgement. Both lead character’s goals in reality could easily be considered dangerous. The BDSM aspect doesn’t even need to come into it. Although the nativity and treatment of the material render this element flaccid anyway. Such an uneven portrayal fails the drama substantially.

Fifty Shades the film helps destroy some of the naff writing that came with the book and yet it still suffers from dubious dialogue, naïve views of relationships and sexuality, as well as general awareness. This man is so rich and has a certain amount of fame around him and yet he manages to slip in and out of clubs like a ninja with no one noticing him. After the first time Christian and Anastasia have sex, to see him playing the piano like such a tragic haunted phantom is more laughable than emotional. Jamie Dorman does his best to make Christian a restrained and controlling figure, but unlike his impressive abs, he has a character which lacks any real definition. Anastasia drives the narrative throughout and yet her need to change Grey is the kind of thing that's been making both men and women sick for years.

Yet the film is gorgeous to look at (shot by The Avengers' Seamus McGarvey), and the performances often hold more chemistry than the net gossip and early reviews suggested. Although the sex itself is mechanical and stiff it at least suggests female pleasure more than male. I do feel there’s a certain amount of female gaze at play over the more typical male.

The biggest problem with a film like this is there are not enough decent female-led and female-driven features, not enough decent Western films dealing with sexuality and not enough mainstream movies interested in outright adult situations. There needs to be more films with similar material to make our basic appreciation of cinematic sex and romance stronger. To see a more effective look at the role of BDSM and sexual power play, you would have to go back at least 13 years to 2002's indie feature Secretary. Foreign features such as the aforementioned The Piano Teacher are still light years ahead in digging into the complexity of material such as this. David Lynch's Blue Velvet (1984) dealt well with the idea of such transgressive sexuality having a corrosive edge, but that's as old as me. That said, I have to say I'm fascinated that the film looks set to be one of the biggest 18-rated films dealing with such material, coming from a female perspective. Along with Gone Girl (2014), it’s clear that a certain type of adult-orientated fare is desperately being asked for and yet is only being nurtured through quite narrow channels. 

It's best to remember that there will be many who are seeking this film out who will be able to remove the right amount of reality and will be able to enjoy the fantasy. The more complicated talk about the male character's abuse and manipulation is important, but ineffectual to a certain crowd who will be able to paraphrase the infamous tagline from Last House on the Left (it’s only a movie) to enjoy the film. I feel this is important, as many people's abrupt disregard for other people’s enjoyment of something like this not only spurs the hype machine on but also illustrates a massive gulf of why people sought out and found enjoyment of the text. As bad as the book’s writing is, and as uneven as the film shows itself, if we as an audience were more willing to embrace adult situations within our entertainment, and hold up a more female-driven fare, Fifty Shades would have more likely been a footnote rather than a landmark. 

Fifty Shades of Gray will in no way enter my list of favourites of the year. It's simply not that great a film. But no doubt the money made and the reactions garnered, in a climate which is consistently infantilizing its entertainment, shows to me that the film is possibly one of the most important entries of the cinematic calendar. Fifty Shades does enough to translate a third of the content of the book and while there's no richness of the source itself, there is a certain amount of the devil in the details.  

Review: Seven Psychopaths

Year: 2012 (Viewed at the London Film Festival)
Director: Martin McDonagh
Screenplay: Martin McDonagh
Starring: Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Tom Waits, Christopher Walken.

Synopsis is here:

After taking my podcast co-host on a needless, round about trip of the London West End to find a bank, we took our seats for our final film of the London Film Festival: Seven Psychopaths, the second full length feature from Martin McDonagh.. The reason I had to find a bank was so I could pay for the tickets, the price of the tickets were...more than your usual cinema venture. But when it's the European Premiere and features a talk with the director, you have to consider you don't get such things with an illegal download.
This is not a statement of confession, more a painting of a scene. It's certainly worth paying more to sit with an excited audience and laugh, giggle and guffaw at McDonagh's latest feature. A violent and offbeat tale of writers block, dognapping and gangsters, Seven Psychopaths is Pulp Fiction by way of Adaptation and Barton Fink. McDonagh's himself stated that the only real influences were Peckinpah and Malick (?!) but it's hard not to think of Kaufman and the Coens (The movies is scored by Carter Burwell) as the film goes on.

Frantic and madcap in its telling, Seven Psychopaths slides from flashback to present day to imagination without a moment’s notice. A film about losing focus which is constantly trying to distract with its famous faces and near meta aspects of plot. It can't be too much of a coincidence that Farrell, known for his risqué past, is shown here, as a wannabe Hollywood writer lost amidst a haze of hard liqueur. A man who could do really turn out a good piece of work as long as he keeps focus. It feels like McDonagh isn't just picking him due to In Bruges.

Farrell's role of straight man is sometimes a little caught up in the craziness of it all, which could be part of the fun. However for all its anarchic glee; the tale does like to go off on tangents, feeling frayed at the end, and coming off like Adaptation's brattier cousin. Kuffman's sublime comedy about "the process" has a deft of touch and sympathy that Psychopaths doesn't. Not a deal breaker by any means, but it does make you notice that Psychopaths suffers from some slight overkill. The film is just a tad too into itself to have a boarder scope.

I shouldn't be knocking too hard on the film which gives us the best Christopher Walken performance in years. Once again, Walken shows why he is rewarding in scenes of both menace and mirth, and does so with an ease that allows one to forget that they actually saw him in The Stepford Wives (or Balls of Fury for that matter).  It's difficult who steals the most scenes between himself and Sam Rockwell, whose balls to the wall performance climaxes a sequence of utter madness. Not to spoil things, but heads have not exploded that well since Scanners. Woody Harrelson sweeps things up as the films loopy antagonist.

For a film that is as all over the place such as this one (we go from dognapping to taking class A's in the desert with a lot of murder inbetween.) The film is never disengaging, like In Bruge, the films dialogue laddish, often ponderous dialogue sparkles, and the film keeps a certain amount of earnestly, despite it's know it all vibe. Like many festival films the film doesn't linger in the mind much, however, it's clear from the offset this isn't a film made to be heavy or filling. Like a grubby lads stag weekend in Magaluf, there's fun to be had, but you might have to be in with the crowd from the start to be comfortable with the injokes.

Review: The Losers

Year: 2010
Director: Sylvain White
Screenplay: Peter Berg, James Vanderbilt
Starring: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Edris Elba, Chris Evans, Jason Patric, Zoe Salanda

The Plot is here.

Coming out in a year where the A Team, The Expendables and are throwing their A listed weight around like nobodies business, The Losers bunch of "lesser knowns" almost looks like it will come up short. However due to the hype and the pressure between the bigger films to bring about the spirit of the 80's action; The Losers may be able to score some formidable points if not win the whole things hands down for simple being a thick slice of fun.

While the other retro actioners will spend a lot of their time winking at the audience, with their pop-culture nods to their original shows or their creators; (case in point B.A Baracus whistling HIS OWN THEME SONG DURING THE A-TEAM TRAILER), The Losers has a small advantage in the fact that not that many people would have read the graphic novel it originally stems from. This is a good thing, because The Losers now has to stand up without the need for rose tinted nostalgia, and to be fair, I feel it does quite well.

The Losers is the kind of film that you could have easily imagined Sly or Arnie having a part in back in the day. It's a lean adventure without fills, but with enough thrills to remain entertaining. It's narrative may be simple, however it's a refreshing change from the overcomplicated plotting of recent summer blockbusters. It's an old dog and therefore has no new tricks, but the direction had enough of a division tactic that made sure I missed a plot twist I could have sniffed out in many other films of it's type. Cliche at times isn't that bad a thing if fun can be found.

A bright film (nice to see such a bold colour scheme as opposed to murky and/or bleached out) The Losers, interestingly enough feels like a video game. But unlike using this statement as a tired critical negative, Sylvain Whites use of over the shoulder visuals, point of view fight shots and one on one combat moments to his advantage trying to coax life out of a genre that sees it all. It doesn't all work but it does have an interesting feel to proceedings. The same goes for some of the more obvious scenes. We see the romantic leads fighting in a blazing hotel room, the music is sexy and many of the shots are slow....yes we're clearly looking at foreplay. But the films back to basics outlook reminds you it's not pretending to be something it's not. No morality issues, no gray areas, just stripped down nonsense. It's simple intentions serve it well. So much so that when the film reaches it's most outrageous moment, it almost feels taken from another film. Despite this it STILL works, and credit is deserved for it's most straight shooting style.

The films cast are also clearly under the films chilled influence. Funny when they want to be (most jokes stemming from the very game Chris Evans), cool when they need to be (with maybe a little too much help from the slow motion); the performances work mostly because there's no preconceptions of the actors. These are the faces of the D-list and character actors, chosen due to their screen presence and not star power, it shows. The interplay between Morgan and Elba is solid, Evans once again shows why he enjoys supporting roles and while Zoe Saldana is little more than eye candy, she is an actress that can do enough with a small amount and infuses the film with more than enough sex appeal. A nod of approval must also go to Columbus Short (Pooch) and Oscar Jaenada who get a lot of fun out of their admittedly one note characters. In an ensemble piece like this, they do well to not feel like also rans. However the best praise is saved for the highly amusing Jason Patric. An actor whose career has never really gone the way many thought it would, his villainous performance is one of old school Saturday morning cartoons. Gleefully evil and hilariously overconfident, it's not a display of mugging, but a performance of oil slick megalomania that had me grinning more than once. It's silly but not over done.

But that's what I enjoyed about The Losers, it knows where it stands. It's a well done genre flick done well. Eschewing anything too over the top for simple pleasures. At first I was weary of where the film was going with the first act bringing up memories of Tony Scott's 00's over-stylised visuals/editing, however the film takes a step back and then goes at it's own pace. It doesn't want to bother anyone, it just wants to have a little fun. Can't argue with that.

*Note: It's clearly obvious that the casting for the up coming Kane and Lynch film is wrong and Jeffrey Dean Morgan is the right man to play Kane. Sorry Mr Willis!

Review: Alice In Wonderland

Year: 2010
Director: Tim Burton
Screenplay: Linda Woolverton
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bohnam Carter, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, Stephen Fry, Barbra Windsor, Alan Rickman, Micheal Sheen, Matt Lucas, Paul Whithouse

Ploy Synopsis is here

For me, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is much like his Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; the film lacks focus. The script is patchy, the main character is relegated to background for various reasons and emotional response is minimal. Once again Burton is more interested in bulking up the background of the "oddballs" than giving the lead character and the story the drive that the film truly needs.

In addition to this, the visual aspect of Burton's work is weak. There's an over reliance of CGI and Green screen that really effected my enjoyment of the world. In comparison to the wonderful balance of CGI imagination and real world that Terry Gilliam managed with The Imaginium of Doctor Parnassus and I found that visually, Wonderland suffers. Not that we're allowed to see that much of it anyway. Once we enter Wonderland we are never given a full experience of actual Wonderment that is really needed to be effective. Alice falls down the rabbit hole having forgotten her original adventure (a bad piece of plotting) but doesn't seem to give much of a damn of how bizarre this world is, something that The Blue Movie (for it's faults) got right.

But then again the film doesn't appear to be really about Alice in Wonderland. No it's more about the Mad Hatter in Mordor (Wonderland nabs quite a bit from middle earth in looks) or The Red Queen's sibling rivalry with the White Queen. Mia Wasikowska is a blank slate and remains that way throughout the entire film. Yes, she bookends the film's story, however her "realizations" at the end of the film come of a little more than a bit of a cheat. Is Wasikowska a bad actress? Maybe. But this film isn't the one to judge her because she has nothing to do and no characterization to grab hold of. But this was the same in CHARLIE and chocolate factory in which Burton and his screenwriter decided that Willy Wonka is clearly the focus of the film and not the titular character.

So once again the film relies on the viewers affection for Johnny Depp more than anything to hold your attention. It's a shame that my love for him is waning. This is not because Depp is a bad actor or bad in this (in fact he's one of the more appealing aspects of the film). But it's because that the more "off key" the Depp performance is the plainer it now seems to become. Depp by numbers is the term I'd use. I doubt we will see a subtle performance from him anytime soon.

It's been quite a while since the movie and I'm still wondering in the point of Anne Hathaway being in the role she was in. I like what she did with the part, but she had to do something to make such needless character interesting. The same goes for Crispin Glover as the Knave of Hearts. The standout is of course Burton's wife Helena Bonham Carter, who, nepotism or not gives a devilishly delicious display (say it quickly) as The Red Queen. Yes, her character traits are from the queen of hearts but give her some credit!

The problem is there's not enough of Carter's energy to go around. It's that kind of verve that was needed to push the films flimsy plot forward. Once again Burton has mentioned of his dislike of the source material (RE: Batman, comics) but the changes agreed with himself and others in the production are more frustrating than anything else. Many of the films set pieces are quite dull, and the films pace is a plodding one, which wouldn't be a problem if Alice wanted to explore such a dream world. May I also add that the 3d element is clearly an after thought and not only takes away some of the films sorely needed colour but adds no depth of immersion to the proceedings but please...like I enjoy the idea of 3D...

On the whole Alice in Wonderland is yet another dreary adaptation of a famous work that lacks the heart found in Big Fish nor the inventiveness of his earlier works. I'm there's enough Johnny and art direction for the die hard fans, but those looking for a dark look at a classic fairy tale may find the whole thing a bit soulless.

Note: Burton's latest achievement in Depp and Set Design is breaking a few Box Office records but hey, just because 50 Cent sold $12 Million on get rich or die tryin doesn't mean I have to think he's a great rapper.

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.

The Sweeney.....The Sweeney!

Nick Love's Big Screen adaptation of The Sweeney has been cancelled due to the studio worrying about the oversea audience for the extremely British film. Judging from the 7 people that made comments on the empire news page...then it's no big deal. But that's 7 more comments than myself at this moment isn't it!


Anyway....here's the link

I'm not really surprised by this as Nick Love makes BRITISH films for BRITISH people and Football Factory, Outlaw, and the other Danny Dyer infested pieces of shit he's made haven't really made noise across any borders but our own.


But hang on a minute...a British crime film....that won't make money aboard? I have two words for you...Guy Richie.

I don't give a rats ass what anyone says. Richie is a competent Brit director who made more money with his first two features then Love has with all his movies put together. The Sweeney sounds like a premise that would be worth a watch under Richie's hands. He has a strong visual style, can tell a story and would be able to gain the "star quality" the studio are looking for. However in say this it seems that Fox wants an American in a lead role to "win the market".

To add to this talks for the second lead role seemed to have faltered. I say...ask John Simms.

Review: Sex in the city

Year:2008
Director: Micheal Patrick King
Screenplay: Micheal Patrick King
Starring: Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristan Davis, Cynthia Nixon, Chris Noth, Jennifer Hudson

(MILD SPOILERS)

I shouldn't have watched this. Hell I didn't even watch it with my girlfriend (she hates the show and watched it with a female friend) but fuck it I saw it. It could have been worse. I've seen worse films this year. Considering all the other cookie cut romantic comedies that rolled out the first half of the year, I'm kinda glad i missed them if I only have to see this one. To be honest for a materialistic, shallow, cash in (don't lie to yourselves girls) the film does alright. It does what it has to do. The problem with the film is quite simply you could have made a two part made for T.V feature for this one film. one that would show the characters better and have time for the story. What you get is a mildly amusing but overlong Rom-com. Tabloid Blurbs have spewed hyperboil about the film being it's ten times better than Bridget Jones diary but in my books that only makes it above mediocre.

Sexy in the city is divided into four quarter plots to make a whole. Carrie (Parker) is wanting to get married to the true love of her life Mr Big (Noth) who is having commitment issues, Samantha (Catrall) is earning shit loads in Los Angeles with her new man but misses new york, Miranda (Nixon) has kicked out Steve as he cheated and Charlotte (Davis)...is just Charlotte.

That's the story in a nut shell. Nothing plot wise has really evolved due to the short comings of the characters core beliefs (Carrie and Charlotte believe in love, Miranda is still an ice queen and Samantha loves sex) however the sex in the city film has allowed maturity into the mix. Time has passed and director/screenwriter Micheal Patrick King has allowed the girl to grow up slightly. Not by much, but enough to make it worth watching. What's unfortunate about the movie is the simple glaring fact that sex in the city is a buddy movie, a two woman one.

Unlike many rom-com's sex in the city is lucky enough to have a 7 season tv program behind it to back up some of the characters but ultimately this is a film about the cynical Miranda and constantly dreaming Carrie. The other characters are merely filler that are placed within the movie because it wouldn't be "sex in the city" without them. The character of charlotte brings nothing to the table while the moderately amusing character of Samantha is merely there to say/do something lightly risque about sex every so often. Her character is the saddest of all because her character arc is the most unbelievable. after five years her "real" reason for leaving her boyfriend is quite weak. If the screenwriters spent more time filling out her character, who had some of the strongest and more prominent turns in the series (especially in the later seasons), then her reasons for leaving most women's dream man (attractive, sensitive and caring) wouldn't appear so false.

But how could the screenwriters spend time on the "lesser" characters when they're spending time adding more needless ones. Jennifer Hudson appears as Carrie's PA, complete with lame story arc and terrible characterisation I've seen in a while. She quite simply is the biggest mammy I've seen in a while, almost born to be subservient to the "Superior white female". At first Hudson's character appears to be an independent black woman looking for the right man. By the end of the film, she's gone back to her small town roots with the trendy new bag given to her and old man. Her search quickly deflated because of course Carrie and Mr Big's misunderstandings are of a greater need than hers.

That's a little harsh maybe? Well even Peter Berg's Hancock is looking at race with a broader eye than this. That's right, Hancock, an original black super hero in a world usually dominated by white ones.

Charlotte is left to have a baby and disappears through lack of interest (her most memorable moment is a fart joke which would be more fitting in an American Pie sequel) which leaves Carrie and Miranda who both carry the movie quite well. Nixon and Parker's emotional scenes do carry weight but this is due to the fact that their characters have the most room to maneuver in.

The film performance wise is extremely solid, but almost everyone in the film have been in these roles for years now. You expect nothing less from the actors and they do not disappoint. Parker and Nixon win out for me as the standouts but a big hand must go out to the male actors of David Eigenberg and Chris Noth who not only provide characters with a bit of depth but remain underrated and important to the course of the story. I would hate this movie if the characters were merely evil male caricatures but their not and the actors, script and directors try to portray their actions as believable as possible. I don't condone what they do at certain points but their characters are made up to be flawed, not devious.

The screenplay is bearable. Moderately amusing when it has to be with some nice moments of wit. However the dialogue doesn't strike home as well as it did in the series and at times feels like it's desperately clawing be as clever. The story has it's moments and the main story rolls at a tidy pace for the most part (the supporting sub-plots cause the film to drag) and due to the series you do feel right at home very quickly. I will say it's a credit to the filmmakers that they manage to put together something that was watchable. Especially after quite a long hiatus. The four girls still manage to be quite relevant despite their changing lifestyle. At it's best the film has a breezy all-for-one charm that will stick to it's fans like glue.

With this said, lets not be misled on why this movie was made. Fans aside it was to make money and the filmmakers disgusting exploit that. The films message is some bullshit one about people leaving their labels behind and just being themselves. however this is after we've been hit with wave after wave of brands being slammed at our credit crunched audience. Yes the sex in the city girls can be themselves. It doesn't help however when your lead characters are label obsessed rich girls. The message just doesn't ring true when you've ultimately watched a 2 hour advertising spot.

Ahem...that aside Sex and the city has it's heart mostly in the right place. It's the ultimate movie for a group of girls getting ready to go out on the razz and that's what it will always be. But My question (like most blokes) is always going to be...why is it that Sarah Jessica Parker is considered a fashion icon when they dress her up in the worst clothes ever?

Watching The Watchmen

I must say that after watching the trailer of Zack Snyder's Watchmen I found myself stunned.

Snyder's vision of the seminal uber comic is not only true to the source but fucking beautiful. After hearing great things about Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (many have stated it's the best comic book movie ever), it seems that Snyder is taking no prisoners. In fact the films scope is looking HUGE.

I've warmed to the director after his testosone fuelled mini epic (do they exisit?) 300. In fact that movie and the look of how Watchmen is shaping has made me consider re-watching the dawn of the dead remake again* (I think I'm the only person in the world that despies that movie).

So here's hoping in 2009 is the year of the watchmen!

*This is one of the reasons why I hate the movie