Review: Street Trash

Year: 2024 (UK Release 2025)

Director: Ryan Kruger

Screenplay: Ryan Kruger, James C Williamson, Roy Frumkes

Starring: Sean Cameron Michael, Donna Cormack-Thomson, Joe Vaz

Synopsis is here

In the age of content rehashing, it’s difficult to watch a remake of a cult hit without feeling a pang of cynicism. The first question on the lips is often “What’s the purpose of this?” with the answer being the IP being cheap far too often. The original Street Trash was an infamous 80s exploitation feature, part of an extremely specific pool of films described as “melt movies”. In these movies, toxic substances or similar materials would simply liquify characters in the movie into thick, viscous gloop. The original Street Trash played out like a series of vignettes in which a group of unhoused people fall afoul of some toxic alcohol and begin to disintegrate. There’s some vague plot involving a violent leader of a gang experiencing Vietnam flashbacks, however, the film is more of an exercise in offence, while also drawing focus on a sub-culture of people who were left out of mainstream cinema's indulgence in excess. Ryan Kruger's remake tries to delve into similar annals of shock value but is held together with more plot threads.

The year is 2050 and Cape Town is experiencing a gilded age. A large sector of the city is now homeless, with a smaller segment still being able to live well.  The city’s major has come up with a scheme to wash away the city’s homeless problem: melt them with drones. It falls to Ronald and his rag-tag group of friends to risk all they can and fight against a society and government who wish to exterminate them.

Whereas the original Street Trash dealt with neglect of the poor, this new remake has a lot more to say about the Government just plain wanting them dead. Street Trash redux makes some smart plays in its back pocket. Moving the action from Brooklyn to Cape Town has a lot more immediacy. The conspiratorial focus on shady government types looking to kill off the poor with toxic spraying drones holds a kernel of relevancy within its far-fetched shell. It’s chaotic multi-channel montage opening riffs on films like Robocop (1987) and District 9 (2009), and the general feeling is that the film isn’t merely giving you the same thing as before with a spit shine. Street Trash redux keeps the nostalgia pandering low and does what it can to stand outside its predecessor’s shadow.

However, the original Street Trash was cult for a reason. Its incessant need to try and offend with puerile humour got grating fast. The best thing going for it is its visuals and effects. The original has a decent moment of craft behind it. Even though it fills the screen with bland casual racism/sexism, it does so with a strong amount of visual flair. There was also a sincerity to its boorishness. This new version tries to follow suit but suffers from being born into a brave new world. Its attempts to be un-PC are even worse. Not because it’s more offensive. Considering the film is set in South Africa, the new trash feels more sensitive to race than the Brooklyn Trash, with the distinct feeling that the filmmakers were worried about watchful eyes. The original Street Trash’s humour felt baked in and organic. There was a devil-may-care nature to the original film that the second film doesn’t feel brave enough to ascribe to.  

The most effective thing about the new Trash is that it has more gloop, gore and violence. Kruger has more resources allowing him to invest in more florescent gut-busting. There’s a lot of Friday night beer fun to have while watching the film's effects. The film's main plot, while still scattershot, is still tighter than the original film, with the narrative lending itself to films like Brian Yuzna’s Society (1989). However, despite this, while consistency wasn’t a major part of the original trash, it certainly felt less scattershot. Kruger’s film is happy flinging things at the wall to see what sticks, including imaginary friends, Peep Show-like characters only seen in first person perspective, and surprisingly more stakes. Donna Cormack-Thomson’s female lead is seemingly in place to be an audience surrogate and give more emotional heft. It’s hard not to feel like her character is here to have people forget how badly the women in the original film were treated. That said, the more disintegrating bodies also look like they’re trying to do the same thing.

There’s still a small amount of fun to be had in places. The performances have a lot of gusto, while some of the more deadpan lines are also tittersome. And while visually the new Trash doesn’t have the same energy as the original, the film looks good for the most part. However, it’s probably not enough to recommend Street Trash. Its social relevance is welcomed, but it doesn’t have that much to say. The film has some bad taste but feels reluctant to go full throttle with things. But ultimately while Street Trash gives itself enough purpose to separate itself from its original movie, there’s not enough here to make it that memorable.

Street Trash will be in UK Cinemas from 10th January and on Digital and Blu-Ray from February 17th

Dug what you read? Support me on Ko-fi

 

 

 

 

Review: Her

Year: 2013 (U.K Release 2014)

Director: Spike Jonez

Screenplay: Spike Jonez

Starring:  Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara, Olivia Wilde, Scarlett Johansson

Synopsis is here 

Don't call it a backlash. It's not that I didn't like Her. The ideas it brings up are provoking in the same way they are in RoboCop (1987) or Blade Runner (1982). However in watching The Lego Movie (which also plays with the ideal of free will) afterwards, I found myself more entertained by the latter’s more subversive elements. After Her, I kept asking: does this world have to be so miserable?

That's not the best way to describe Her: a film which lands us in a pastel and placid LA in which people are more obsessed with their handhelds than we see now (even in this screening I had some ignorant ass on giving off their light pollution). But Her sits us next to Theodore, a un-engaging sad sack who writes heartfelt letters to long distanced love ones, a man who provides the right emotions for other but none for himself.

As the film delves deeper into its sci-fi premise, we realise that this is computer as confessional; a personal live journal who embraces you and grows with you. You shout into the void and it responds back to you in a deeply profound way. No doubt we can see the obstacles over the horizon. Think of children.

As Samantha; the love interest and programmed operating system; Scarlett Johansson has possibly the most difficult performances she’s possibly faced (I have not seen Under the Skin yet). Even animated characters have facial tics. One of the films strongest factors is witnessing the screenplay and Johanson’s performance (in which we only see as her voice) expands as the film moves along. Samantha grows from an advanced yet empty program to a spirited personality with an inquisitiveness entirely of it’s own accord. Johansson’s husky, sensual tone not only accentuates the playful, flirty aspects of the character, but she also brings out the empathy of a being that is slowly learning of the world around itself.

This is Jones' prettiest film, the crisp, clean aesthetic sparkles and the small details that display a futuristic America has a plausible texture to proceedings. Jones' use of space is powerful but it's also quite isolating while his lead is frustratingly distancing. Jordan Belfort in Wolf of Wall Street is a sexist man a misogynistic world, but his charm has a sleazy allure to it and his antics are quick to remind a viewer of how you should feel about such a douche. While WOWS is a film which has us laugh at Belfort, Her wishes us to believe that Theodore is someone to sympathise with entirely despite his anti social world view which is much of his own creation. I don’t have to like a character to love a film, yet Theodore  lacks the engagement that would help me respond in the way that Jonez would like me to.

The creepy, slightly insidious way he wants to control the women (who are smarter than himself) in his life is placed to the side. Its absorbing to see how Samantha grows and appreciates the world, it's awkward to see how limited Theodore wishes to keep both his and her view. But it's fine because he doesn't have the snarky OK Cupid profile to show his darker side. The films latter half also considers the idea that not only Theodore, but we as people are sadly limiting, stunted and slightly disabled of our own view. To put it another way, Dave wouldn't be able to disable Hal.

I have similar reservations to Her as I did with Being John Malkovich. The concept is provoking but the character is selfish and self absorbed in a way that the beautiful score and future quirks cannot hide and that places me far too at odds with a character who wishes to appear pleasant. I think that's my tragedy with Her. It does well to remind us how human we can be. Then we realise the problem with her is him.

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.