Review: RoboCop

Year: 2014

Director: Jose Padilha

Screenplay: Joshua Zetumer

Starring: Joel Kinnaman, Abbie Cornish, Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, Jackie Earle Haley, Samual L Jackson, Michael K Williams, Jennifer Ehle, Jay Baruchel

Synopsis is here

I’ve never had a truly strong affinity to RoboCop, although I do enjoy watching the original movie a lot. It’s not really a fault of the film; however, the 90’s kid in me often kicks in when viewing the movie. The 80’s consumerism and Jesus imagery feels commonplace now despite being so outrageous in 1987. Personal preference has me warming to Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers as I get older as it still feels radical. The original RoboCop, while still a smart sci-fi, almost feels like it lost the war it was raging at the time. I remember watching the film again while at university and seeing a class of kids glaring uninterested at the film. I’d dread to think how millennials would see the film.

It’s talk like that which probably helped make a reboot of the property so appealing.  It’s hard not to think of executives probably spying the Boba Fett merchandise fetish that spurred on the sequels, TV and cartoon series. While not an uberfan of the 80’s feature, I do remember feeling a slight discomfort at the remakes’ first press leakings. From the drab trailer to the new suit, I couldn’t find anyone too impressed with the shiny new direction the filmmakers looked to be going.  

It’s been stated that Brazilian director Jose Padilha (Elite Squad) had a lot of trouble on the production (one that was already halted due to “creative difficulties), yet he and screenwriter Joshua Zetumer struggle on to craft a broad sci-fi procedural that display enough hints of ambition. Robo 2.0 toys with the idea of PR led, globalised crime fighting in entertaining ways, from its impressive Middle Eastern opening and Samuel L Jackson’s winking media “news” presenter, to the sudden realisation Murphy gets when he discovers where his new parts come from. The film’s humour may not be as strong as Verhoeven’s, but Robo 2.0 displays the type of smarts that some remakes simply don’t bother with.

The film does struggle over certain hurdles due to the pressure of what it now needs to become. The original films feminist and urban readings take a strong hit, while the amount of violence use for a 12a is beyond problematic. It never thinks why Verhoeven’s use of gore was considered. Yet despite this, the philosophical element of man and his tools, the marketability of safety and talk of free will, still engage. One shouldn’t regard the clean Apple design of Omicorp or the chilling use of surveillance that RoboCop once uses to try and track his killers. There’s enough with the film to remind us just how close we are to certain possibilities. It helps that Padilha brings his Elite Squad energy to the action, although the sequences become less interesting towards the end.

With all this said, Robo 2.0 is a serviceable entry to a franchise that was completely fine as a one shot. Take that last sentence as you will, but if producers are to be incessant with ramming these types of reboots in our faces, at least, they saw sense in hiring a socially conscious director with something to say and a screenplay with an amount of texture under the surface. Total Recall Remake this is not.

Review: Oldboy

Year: 2013

Director: Spike Lee

Screenplay:  Mark Protosevich

Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Olsen, Sharlto Copley, Samuel L Jackson

Synopsis is here:

If you type Oldboy into your favourite search engine, you should notice that the 2003 Korean thriller appears first, above this year’s remake. I say this now as it reminds me of one thing: Spike Lee hasn’t ruined Oldboy.  Has Matt Reeves ruined Let the Right One in? Has Gus Van Sant besmirched your memories of Psycho? No. They haven’t. If you think they have, then turn in your film fan card and give your original version DVD’s to someone else.

That said, while imitation is the highest form of flattery, such projects usually fail due to a misalignment of elements. The repeating of sequences may satisfy an audience who feel they’re above reading subtitles, yet these set pieces and narratives are regenerated without the reason why they were so beguiling in the first place. Often it’s something cultural that’s subtracted for the sake of boarding the perspective of the new viewers. Spike Lee’s Oldboy suffers because it’s full of such examples.

Unlike The Departed, Scorsese’s crime drama, which took the Hong Kong based Infernal Affairs and reformatted itself into a property that could stand on its own two feet, Oldboy merely eliminates the oddities of its Korean source material a simply movies the rest to American shores.  The Oldboy narrative is so peculiar and the original director so particular that a straight up reimagining just doesn’t cut it.

If we liken films to cooking, Lee’s has the basic recipe, but it’s possibly missing the unami paste that gives us a certain flavour. Maybe certain ingredients have been placed in the oven a tad too long (explaining Sharlto Copley’s over baked performance). Perhaps it forgets when the pot needs to simmer and when everything needs to be brought to the boil. This is a film which looks like it should taste the same, but will have you reaching for the seasoning. 

A scene we remember from the 2003 Oldboy has our lead protagonist devour a live octopus on screen as he wishes to eat something alive. After being locked up for 15 years, we are watching a character that is quite simply dead inside. He is consuming the creature for feeling. Fast forward ten years to the U.S counterpart. We have a moment in which Josh Brolin spies an Octopus briefly. We’ve suddenly shifted from an acute visual metaphor to a vague silly head nod. Now something which had significance is now rendered near meaningless.

Spike’s take on the originals infamous corridor sequence is one of the most striking moments of choreography of the year. It’s a solid piece of action filmmaking and yet still it misses the point. Instead of a character that is unsure of his capabilities, Brolin stomps on each stooge as if he was a superhero with little weakness. No weakness, no worry.

You shouldn’t really compare remakes to their original counterparts. However Lee’s Oldboy never strays too far from the original property, and when it does, it sways into the wrong direction. I can once again point you in the direction of Copley’s annoyingly distracting display, but here is also the matter of Elizabeth Olsen being left out to dry with the flatly portrayed character of Marie, as well as Brolin’s solid but overtly macho Joe Doucett who is set up as a raging animal from the start and little of the wounded beast which we remember Oh Dae-su.

You can sense that Spike is not that interested in the studio system. He’s avoided it for most of his career and Oldboy shows why. So many elements feel like studio influence as opposed to director’s choice. Take away a few Spike traits and Oldboy could have been filmed by anyone. There is little of Lee’s own persona or creativity to counterbalance the problems the translation brings, so the outcome feels like a mishandled exercise more than anything.

This American retelling loses much of the melodrama of the Korean film mostly because American retellings have little time for such things. Park Chan-Wook’s 2003 piece is a film that understands that stillness is as important as ferocity. It’s no surprise that when we look Park’s work in this year’s Stoker, it’s played with the same delicate touch. Spike's Oldboy is primal from the get go, but adds no layers to itself. Broiln is an animal that needs to be caged and that's it. There's little poetry to proceedings, the tragic nature of the outrageous twists is never really peeked at. Simply put: Oldboy is an opera that Spike tried to make a rap remix from.

Review: Evil Dead

Year: 2013

Director: Fede Alvarez

Screenplay: Fede Alvarez, Rodo Sayagues, Diablo Cody

Starring: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas, Elizabeth Blackmore

Synopsis is here

If there's one complaint I have with remakes, it is that there seems to be a belief that cash is a perfect match up to go up against an original product in which it basis was created around fearlessness, accident and dedication to the vision. The belief of traipsing over the first rendition is not new, nor is it one I completely disagree with. But films like The Evil Dead are a perfect example. The timing is off, acting iffy and at the worst of times the camera placement decapitates more heads than the axe does in the film itself. But it's budget limitation quickly becomes part of its essence. It is considered not only a horror classic, but a horror untouchable. A piece that should not be touched in order to be retouched, redone or remade. But of course in this day and age that means even less than before. 

So here we are with a remake of Evil Dead, something that many feel shouldn't be. Much like the name of one of the demons that appear within this redux, some will consider this an Abomination. It's understandable. It is definitely not your fathers The Evil Dead, particularly when it comes to delivering a general creepy tone. For all it's thrift, Evil Dead 81 placed hard graft in its general tone. Evil Dead 2013 isn't "scary" and for that it should have failed with me. Yet as a splatterfest, Evil Dead is not only out rivals the original with a plethora of plasma, but it's relentlessness delivery is a huge amount of fun. 

Evil Dead does more than enough to bring a certain degree of wildness back to mainstream U.S. horror. The comparisons to Cabin in the Woods are understandable, however, as subversive as Drew Goddard wink to the fans was, Evil Dead wishes to remind you that such movies can be played out without snark and still bring around enough abject weirdness to make it stand apart from some of the more drab modern counterparts. The films climatic moments are so brazenly absurd, that I was squirming excitedly in my chair with a disturbing amount of bloodlust. 

Not to say I didn't want the cast of ED2013 to all perish. Quite simply, the film lands us with a basic yet effective redemption tale with spirited and likeable cast that is able to generate more than a fair amount of suspense. I wanted to know how far we were going to fall down the rabbit hole. Its been a while since I've had that feeling with a gore film of this nature. The film isn't wildly original in its violence (the film borrows liberally from The Exorcist a little too much) nor should it have to be. The film's narrative appears to be more in line with Scream 4 in that the plot is skewed enough to give off the feeling that the demonic intrusions could flip on at any time. There's something disturbingly heartening about having a feeling which any of these old friends can be extinguished. But at least I felt like they know each other. 

It is true that the films slickness is evident in its visuals and set design. While not it doesn't hold the sickly Platinum Dunes palette that drives die hards mad, it could do with a bit more of the originals sweat and grime. You get the feeling that we may see more of this instagram "neatness" to proceedings however let it be known that Evil Dead makes enough of its own impression to imagery that many have gotten used to. 

There will be alterations that might not ring true (how I wish they found the tape), yet there's enough soul to be swallowed by this remake that covers itself with a brutal energy that may help snap some of us out of their found footage ghost story stupor. Evil Dead has set the bar. I now wonder how the delayed remake of Carrie will fair. 

Review: Headhunters

Year: 2011 (U.K release 2012)
Director: Morten Tyldum
Screenplay: Lars Gudmestad, Ulf Ryberg
Starring: Aksel Hennie, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Synnøve Macody Lund, Julie R. Ølgaard

Synopsis is here

Headhunters appears to be gleefully taking advantage of a small-scale Scandinavian invasion; that looks like it kicked off with the likes of Let the Right One In (2008) and The Killing, but actually goes back further with the likes of Christopher Nolan's Insomnia (2002) and David S Goyer's The Invisible (2006) being remakes lifted from Scandinavian counterparts (1997 and 2002) respectively). As I sat watching the film I already had myself wondering who would be cast in a tamer Hollywood retelling* (Steve Buscemi, Diane Kruger and Arron Eckheart).  But before the cash claws of California begin to dig in, the original is sitting in cinemas trying to benefit from counter programming, sitting in-between the likes of The Hunger Games and Mirror Mirror.

Those's looking for a more po-faced thriller; the likes of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, may be slightly disappointed. Headhunters is in no way as serious and dark as some the aforementioned titles. Far from it, in fact, as it titters from mild mannered Ocean's affair (the slightly intrusive score evoking David Holmes) to graphic but mostly ludicrous violence. The perfect litmus test; is how a viewer feels about a protagonist finding himself nestling in a faeces filled toilet, using a loo roll tube as a breathing apparatus (and piece of camouflage).

The film descends from light hearted caper to droll cat and mouse chase as the Macguffin is quickly forgotten and the unorthodox looking Aksel Hennie panics franticly from absurd set piece to the next. The film delights in abusing it's lead to near Evil Dead levels. Bodies pile up, dogs are skewered, the aforementioned "poo dip" and the reason behind everything is all very silly. Despite being a leading Headhunter for a large company, the oddly named Roger Brown, wishes earn more money stealing art to keep up an ridiculous lifestyle and his impossibly good looking wife happy.

The set up doesn't sound too out of the ordinary considering, however, what makes the film interesting is not only the mere fact that Brown has to literally shave his head in order to physically keep it, but that the film uses it's oddball mixture of big business recruitment and art nabbing hijinks as a metaphor for grandiose dick swinging and bruised masculinity. Such aspects do go against the Hollywood grain. The film display its hero as a flawed individual who is physically wanting also. As our anti-hero is slung from pillar to post we soon realised he is being punished for his status claiming and lack of humility. The idea of such a character getting battered about due to his compensation for his small man syndrome, you can't help but giggle slightly. One of the films strongest and most telling scenes involves Roger meeting the antagonist Clus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) at an art gallery opening (how droll). Clus' model good looks and easy charm are used as in sharp contrast to Roger.

Strangely this is where the film left me. While I found myself absorbed in the movie as it revelled in it's madness, when the film has to explain itself in the third act, it doesn't stand up as well. Reasoning and  motivations flounder and become hazy while the pay off, though fine thematically, is played out as typically as the American films it managed to eschew for the most part. I'm sure most people won't mind and go along for the ride. However for me, the film nearly stopped dead in it's tracks for me.

Despite it's weaker third act, Headhunters utilizes it morbid sense of humour to it's fullest and manages to play out it's thrills far more effectively than the likes of such nonsense like The Tourist. Headhunter is slick and snappy entertainment, which is well cast and tightly put together. One could say for the most part the film got its head screwed on...sorry.

*Note: Upon writing this post, I found out that the remake rights have been brought by Hollywood already (before this film even came out).

THE YEAR THAT WAS 2011

At the end of last year I moaned about people’s attitudes to remakes and sequels and unfortunately due to the abundance of such films that flowed through this year, it seems that once again I’m  bitching about such things once more. Sorry.

The ever excellent MAMO podcast made the amusing point this year that all these people whining about remakes of foreign films are talking about movies that have already been adapted for them. Getting on your soapbox about the latest remake is one thing but the fact that they haven’t realised that said foreign film has been adapted to make sense for them in the way of subtitles anyway, helps make the argument moot.

 It seems that even the makers of the original features are now even above such talk. To find out that director Tomas Alfredson thought that his reaction towards American remake Let me in was childish, speaks volumes to a tinterweb brigade who are quick to yell BOYCOTT and ORIGINAL MOVIES when the next upcoming remake is announced but a quick to step in line when the next book/comic/graphic novel to film adaptation launches. It hasn’t escaped me that despite all this “Hollywood is so unoriginal” talk, the highest ranking film based on an original idea (Bridesmaids) lies 12 in worldwide box office gross.  Closer to home in the U.K. we see that yet again despite some fine features making appearances and friends not only on these shores but in the U.S, you’d be hard pressed to find the likes of Attack the Block making even a dent in the top U.K 30, let alone the top ten. This makes the homegrown antics of The Inbetweeners Movie quite an achievement, whether based on a T.V program or not.

The final entry of the Harry Potter series speaks much of the cinematic landscape. Based on a book, brand awareness in heaps, bankrolled by Warner Bros yet filmed here with British talent. Yes, lavish praise was once again heaped on the wizard franchise by muggles. And while I agree that such films like Potter and Bond are around and keep highly skilled crew in jobs in our world famous studios. The amount of profit made by these ventures don’t appear to putting as money into our fledging British film industry as one would like. It does however help allow mediocre films like Clash of the Titans sequels to get funded.

This brings me to the problematic area of distribution in which our mainstream cinemas still don’t believe in a fair fight. When I first worked in a cinema; I remember discovering that two major studios owned it. Much may have changed since I’ve left but I’m sure that the major studios still have the biggest stake in our cinemas and the ultimate decisions in what get shown. I’m constantly frustrated that movies seem to only be slanted towards an ignorant 15-24 male demographic whose only concerns are Robots hitting each other but this is something one must grin and bear until I move closer to London again and allowed to wallow in the glorious glow of the Curzon Cinema in Soho. As a lover of cinema, I will still try and seek out smaller gems when I can. The problem is of course, it’s most likely to be a home with microwave popcorn. Away from cinema screens filled with noisy, iphoning, dingbats.

Such talk explains why things don’t appear to be changing. If people are waiting to watch certain types of cinema at home, online or on blu-ray with massive screens then why would cinemas try and alter the viewing choices? The major budget films are all about those first three days (or more depending on those advanced screenings) in as many screens as possible, and it seems to be working still (despite falling viewership) Smaller films (particularly overseas markets) seem to be happy with the long game with the knowledge that it could find the audience it desires on the smaller screen. It’s all good asking for change, but even when the likes of Jonathan Rosenbaum have decided to set up shop at home than the cinema then many must be asking “what’s all the fuss about?”

With all this said I still watch as many movies as I can. It’s easy to bemoan many aspects of modern viewing (and I do at length), but the love of sitting in a dark room watching a movie still bewitches me. My only ask is that film should be viewed more importantly, as an art form and as a way we shape our culture. With the ability to capture motion being so easy for us these days, we take for granted how powerful the medium can be. Yes, entertainment does and will always be a factor when I pick up something to watch but one of the things that makes warm is when a film as the ability to teach, spark thought or debate, and of course move you. This year has been one in which such aspects have made that mark.

My favourite ten of the year (as always in no order):

Animal Kingdom

Grubby crime cinema from Australia. More in line with Greek Tragedy than Goodfellas. Michôd's feature debut is may have a low key feel, but the tension is ratcheted to its highest. It’s opening scene hooked me. It’s final moments left me on the ropes.

 Melancholia 

Melancholia is at times just as visually arresting as Von Trier's Antichrist, but is a far more precise being. Von Trier is far more accurate here and one of the reasons seems to be that the subject matter is closer to his heart. The dark clouds of depression loom large over both Antichrist and Melancholia but the latter shows a director whose far more in the mood to tackle (and even embrace) his demons then letting them run amok. Self absorption and pomp are still abound from the "best director in the world" but this is far more focused, far more at peace.

Hanna

It slips from action to drama without difficulty, it shrugs off its unoriginality and sketchy plot with well drawn out themes, strong lead character and visual flair. The music is immediate and kept me in the moment and I adored the films quiet loud quiet rhythm. Hanna doesn't say much different, but it has the ability to be more articulate when it's shouting it's message from the hills.

NEDS

Unrepentant to the end, provocative and just as relevant for now as it is for the era it’s set in. Like it’s lead character it’s tough to watch at times but compelling throughout.

Tree of Life

Malick’s film is a celebration of life, a joy in contemplation of us merely existing and how this fact alone can provide resonance in others. That our simply being here can provide happiness to those we touch.  This simple and yet deeply profound and affecting ideal is why I loved the film.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

I thought it would be the weakest blockbuster of the year. Turns out was the most exhilarating one and one of the only summer flicks that actually wanted to tell a story. The film also featured one of the most fist pumping, barnstorming set pieces of the year, set on the San Francisco Bridge.

Drive

If I wanted to act clever; when talking about Drive, I'd say something along the lines of: A brutal symphony, tinged with flecks of 80's nostalgia and machismo.  But I’m better off in stating that Drive is a highly entertaining, stylish piece of trash. A classically tragic anti-hero, a soundtrack that once heard you can’t shake off and a beautifully shot L.A. I was in heaven watching this.

Tinker Tailor Solider Spy

Alfredson's film works so well because it take time over showing how deeply isolated the spy game is. Close relationships are broken, belittled and bargained for, information is called gold dust for good reason and moral compasses are as murky as the films cold, drab colour scheme that Alfredson utilises to enhance the tone of the film. The film is literally as grey as the the shades these characters dwell in.

The GuardIn yet another year in which I found most of the Hollywood comedies waning somewhat, it’s was wonderful to stumble upon this low-fi Irish indie gem. A film I hope find its audience on DVD like it’s kissing cousin In Burges.

We need to talk about Kevin

Ramsay’s direction as never been so precise, while Swinton simply dominates the screen in this psychological battle of wits. The films draining central relationship  (with Ezar Miller giving a particularly malicious performance) manages to keep it’s ambiguity and tension to the end.

Honourable Mentions: Beats, Rhymes & Life:The Travels Of A Tribe Called Quest, Archipelago, Senna, Essential Killing, Red State, Warrior, Kill List

Other Film highlights: Meeting directors Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) and Joe Cornish (Attack the Block). The biggest thing for me this year however was meeting one of my idols; Mark Kermode, in Oxford and talking to him about The Ninth Configuration, Thelma Schoonmaker and Shutter Island