Year: 2009
Director: Phil Claydon
Screenplay: Stewart Williams and Paul Hupfield
Starring: James Corden, Matthew Horne
In 2003 Stewart Williams and Paul Hupfield (both MTV producers at the time) were challenged to think up of the dumbest and yet most commercial film title they could think of before going off and writing the script. Lesbian Vampire Killers is what they came up with. Intended to be a straight to DVD B movie with Williams intended to play one of the parts, six years on it becomes an upcoming vehicle for a comic double act (soon to be vilified due to overexposure) who have been gaining rave reviews for their BBC Three sitcom. The film is released to a shed load of piss poor critical reviews and pretty much bombing at the box office.
I feel my little history lesson helps show the wealth of problems Lesbian Vampire Killers has before I even try tackling the movie. Think of a stupid commercial title first before any sort of real idea, a straight to DVD B movie given a theatrical release because Horne and Corden are in it. MTV PRODUCERS WRITING A SCREENPLAY OF ANY KIND. The film was almost pretty much doomed to fail before it started.
Obviously, the film is clearly tongue in cheek, a spoof of the old school hammer horror/B movies that people hold dear. However, LVK fails because it seems that the filmmakers haven't even watched the films that they are trying to take the piss out of. Death Proof has it's fair share of distractors but you can't say that Tarantino doesn't love the movies he's homaging. The same goes for Planet Terror which revels in it's exploitative nature. LVK plays it safe throughout as if the BBFC had bulked on the films name and did it's best to clamp down any extreme elements during filming. A film like this should be cheeky not sanitised, however LVK does little to truly cash in on it's name. It's not very gory, nor is it that sexy and that's bad enough. It doesn't help that it's not very funny either.
Director Phil Claydon does his best to fill the large cracks by making the film visually interesting. While he should stay away from gimmicky effects, the film looks good. In fact it looks better than it should. It's a shame the script can't match up to the director's eye. The screenplay is shoddy work, with no real humor to speak of. In fact the only real reason any of the film is amusing is due to the hard work James Corden puts in. Corden gets all the "best lines" and is clearly comfortable in the film atmosphere. Matthew Horne however, clearly shows he's not ready to carry a film with a performance as awkward as it is bland. Paul McGann is roped in to give "British cinema a hand" while all the female parts are not worth talking about. Reason? They're are only here to look good. But when a film called Lesbian Vampire Killers has hardly any sex in it...what's the point?
Lesbian Vampire Killers is one of the weakest entries into the film cannon I've seen this year. A feminist view of the film would be disastrous as the film is littered with casual misogyny. Fans of the genre will be disappointed due to the films lack of spine and casual viewers may get nothing out of it either. All in all a waste of time for all involved.
Monday, 10 August 2009
Sunday, 9 August 2009
RIP: John Hughes: 1950 - 2009
Voice of a generationSo many words have been spoken so I'm merely adding to the mass. People have been talking
about the man over the weekend and the words have been so tender and sweet that anything I would say would pale in comparison. The best thing I can do is show my favorite Hughes scene:
Two words: Unbridled Joy
Saturday, 8 August 2009
Review: Moon
Year: 2009
Director: Duncan Jones
Screenplay: Nathan Parker
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey
Here's the thing. I live in a medium sized town which has two cinemas. Sounds great for a guy like me yeah? Well not quite. Both are multiplexes and we're still in the summer blockbuster season. And with that, smaller films like Moon will be pushed out in order to have another screen of Harry Potter, despite the fact it's playing in the other five cinemas. So how did I get to see Moon? I got my ass off the sofa and got on a train. Pricey? Little bit. Worth it? Defiantly.
If you (read: anyone) reads this blog on somewhat of a regular basis, then you may have heard me signing the praises of Johnny Depp in Public Enemies. It was a performance I considered one of the best (if not the best) of the year. Well sorry Johnny and shut the fuck up Byron, Sam Rockwell film carrying display in Moon was quite simply stunning. Rockwell hasn't been this engaging since his remarkable performance in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002), and here in this film he shows once again why he's so watchable.
It's hard to truly talk about how good Rockwell is in the role without letting out some of Moon's deeper secrets and because of that I will only say this: It's varied. This is a film that relies (almost solely) on Rockwell carrying it and he does so with ease. One plot moment is shown in the trailer but it doesn't tell you how fragmented the role Rockwell plays is. This is not the (intentionally) flat performance by Keir Dullea in 2001 (a film which Moon riffs on consantly) but a complicated, nuanced display of isolation, fear and deterioration.
Rockwell's performance helps bring about the larger arguments that Duncan Jones wishes to bring forth in the movie: what does it mean to be human? Is it our works? our memories? Jones delivers the films themes with such a sobering it hits you in the gut. Sci-fi films often deal with the ideals of spirituality, not here. Moon has been talked about as a film dealing with loneliness and this is true, but it's not just about the one man on the moon, but us as a race. This is hard sci-fi that isn't scared to remind us that we may only be an accident or a mistake and that we're doing everything to keep us occupied. It's scary thought but more which is much more interesting than the hackneyed alien god hodgepodge that lies at the end of Knowing.
It is this bold and adult look at story telling that makes Moon stand out. Jones, making his first feature length film, keeps the effects simple (and effective), while the pace and tone of the film will remind people of Alien. Jones' homages so many classic sci-fi films (Solaris, Silent Running etc) but refuses to merely ape them and brings about a film with it's own sense of being and relevance. The brilliant score from Clint Mansell (as always) only help seals the vision completely with the music managing to be both ominous and emotional at various points.
For me I found Moon to be beautiful, stunning and brilliant. It's fantastic central performance, deep themes and involving story make it one of the best I've seen this year. It's a shame that many won't get to see it until DVD next year, I however am happy to have seen it when I did.
Director: Duncan Jones
Screenplay: Nathan Parker
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey
Here's the thing. I live in a medium sized town which has two cinemas. Sounds great for a guy like me yeah? Well not quite. Both are multiplexes and we're still in the summer blockbuster season. And with that, smaller films like Moon will be pushed out in order to have another screen of Harry Potter, despite the fact it's playing in the other five cinemas. So how did I get to see Moon? I got my ass off the sofa and got on a train. Pricey? Little bit. Worth it? Defiantly.
If you (read: anyone) reads this blog on somewhat of a regular basis, then you may have heard me signing the praises of Johnny Depp in Public Enemies. It was a performance I considered one of the best (if not the best) of the year. Well sorry Johnny and shut the fuck up Byron, Sam Rockwell film carrying display in Moon was quite simply stunning. Rockwell hasn't been this engaging since his remarkable performance in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002), and here in this film he shows once again why he's so watchable.
It's hard to truly talk about how good Rockwell is in the role without letting out some of Moon's deeper secrets and because of that I will only say this: It's varied. This is a film that relies (almost solely) on Rockwell carrying it and he does so with ease. One plot moment is shown in the trailer but it doesn't tell you how fragmented the role Rockwell plays is. This is not the (intentionally) flat performance by Keir Dullea in 2001 (a film which Moon riffs on consantly) but a complicated, nuanced display of isolation, fear and deterioration.
Rockwell's performance helps bring about the larger arguments that Duncan Jones wishes to bring forth in the movie: what does it mean to be human? Is it our works? our memories? Jones delivers the films themes with such a sobering it hits you in the gut. Sci-fi films often deal with the ideals of spirituality, not here. Moon has been talked about as a film dealing with loneliness and this is true, but it's not just about the one man on the moon, but us as a race. This is hard sci-fi that isn't scared to remind us that we may only be an accident or a mistake and that we're doing everything to keep us occupied. It's scary thought but more which is much more interesting than the hackneyed alien god hodgepodge that lies at the end of Knowing.
It is this bold and adult look at story telling that makes Moon stand out. Jones, making his first feature length film, keeps the effects simple (and effective), while the pace and tone of the film will remind people of Alien. Jones' homages so many classic sci-fi films (Solaris, Silent Running etc) but refuses to merely ape them and brings about a film with it's own sense of being and relevance. The brilliant score from Clint Mansell (as always) only help seals the vision completely with the music managing to be both ominous and emotional at various points.
For me I found Moon to be beautiful, stunning and brilliant. It's fantastic central performance, deep themes and involving story make it one of the best I've seen this year. It's a shame that many won't get to see it until DVD next year, I however am happy to have seen it when I did.
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Review: G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra
Year: 2009
Director: Stephen Sommers
Screenplay: Stuart Beattie, David Elliot
Starring: Channing Tatum, Sienna Miller, Randy Quaid, Christopher Eccleston, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje
One of my problem with the Transformers movies has always been their cynicism and pompousness. Michael bay is a master of filming pyrotechnics but his toy movie adaptation have always seemed to be more about posturing and self-indulgence more than anything. "I make movies for teenage boys. Oh dear, what a crime." So he says but it's hard to tell with some of the product placement and over long running times that litter his robot saga.
While I've been fine with the director in the past, signs of his own smug self-importance have started become even more clear to me. An example of this would be the email he sent to Paramount bemoaning the "lack of promotion" of Revenge of the Fallen. His worry about a near profit proven promotion over his actors says more about him than it should.
It's probably one of the reasons why I enjoy G.I. Joe Rise of the Cobra a lot more than either Transformer movies. A Bay movie thinks they're better than they are, while G.I Joe knows exactly would it is and runs with it. I may be wrong, but Revenge of the fallen takes over two hours to say nothing at all. G.I. Joe is 40 minutes shorter and is far more interesting.
The film is utterly preposterous is almost every way, but it wears it's silliness proudly. It constantly winks at the camera and has an energy that truly reminds me of an dodgy 80's cartoon, something that the other aforementioned movie could not do. This stems from Steven Sommer's sense of humour. He seems to understand the absurdity of the source material a lot more and delivers to us a film that appears to have it's tongue clearly in it's cheek. This is only way I can comprehend a film ripping off (paying homage?) to Team America: World Police.
Nothing is taken seriously and the film works because of it. Not to say that it hasn't got some of the basics right as well. For a summer blockbuster, I'm not expecting intricate, detailed screenwriting on display but the conflict within the screenplay goes much further than what's been placed than its "bigger brother". The contrivances can be spotted a mile off, but the film is still far more engaging because of what happens to the characters within the (paper thin) plot.
Whereas Revenge of the fallen as the edge when it comes to acting (top character actors + cardboard characters = some energy) G.I wins out when it comes to character development. Don't get me wrong, this is not Macbeth, yet the people here are more fleshed out than the 294 minutes of both those Robot movies combined. Also, to Sommers credit, despite having what could be considered "lesser actors" Sommers manages cox a watchable performance out of most of them...EVEN MARLON WAYNES!!!! It is said that Waynes has given decent displays in the likes of Above the Rim and Requim for a Dream. Here Sommers manages to place Waynes in a role that doesn't make you want to punch him in the face. Quaid looks slightly embarrassed to be there but takes it all on the chin, while Christopher Eccleston and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ham everything up to 11...it works considering the movie is a silly one. A performance of note I may add is Sienna Miller. Usually an actress I care little about, Miller may have found her niche as an near emotionless villain....(lol). The less to say about the dull displays given to us by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje and Channing Tatum however the better.
Sommers directs G.I. with enough pace to stop the film from being boring and enough humour to distract us from the patchy plot. The action still suffers from the modern day hyper editing that has plagued many a action film but still manages to have fun moments. Sommers scores the most points by winking at the camera and nudges us in the ribs when the film hits the heights true heights of stupidity. The film is brainless but Sommers wants you to enjoy it for what it is. Many could say the same about some of the other blockbusters I've trashed, but Sommer keeps the tone just right. Like the rest of his back catalogue, Sommer's understands that this is nonsense, not a moment of it suffers from the portentousness that has struck other "event movies". This alone makes such a bizarre (and unbelievably violent) watchable.
The Summer of 2009 will not be the most memorable film season but at least at the end Stephen Sommers manages to bring out a guilty pleasure which brings about a sugar rush high that will help you forget the Angels and Demons of the year. But don't say I didn't warn you about the come down.
Listen to the podcast here
Director: Stephen Sommers
Screenplay: Stuart Beattie, David Elliot
Starring: Channing Tatum, Sienna Miller, Randy Quaid, Christopher Eccleston, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje
One of my problem with the Transformers movies has always been their cynicism and pompousness. Michael bay is a master of filming pyrotechnics but his toy movie adaptation have always seemed to be more about posturing and self-indulgence more than anything. "I make movies for teenage boys. Oh dear, what a crime." So he says but it's hard to tell with some of the product placement and over long running times that litter his robot saga.
While I've been fine with the director in the past, signs of his own smug self-importance have started become even more clear to me. An example of this would be the email he sent to Paramount bemoaning the "lack of promotion" of Revenge of the Fallen. His worry about a near profit proven promotion over his actors says more about him than it should.
It's probably one of the reasons why I enjoy G.I. Joe Rise of the Cobra a lot more than either Transformer movies. A Bay movie thinks they're better than they are, while G.I Joe knows exactly would it is and runs with it. I may be wrong, but Revenge of the fallen takes over two hours to say nothing at all. G.I. Joe is 40 minutes shorter and is far more interesting.
The film is utterly preposterous is almost every way, but it wears it's silliness proudly. It constantly winks at the camera and has an energy that truly reminds me of an dodgy 80's cartoon, something that the other aforementioned movie could not do. This stems from Steven Sommer's sense of humour. He seems to understand the absurdity of the source material a lot more and delivers to us a film that appears to have it's tongue clearly in it's cheek. This is only way I can comprehend a film ripping off (paying homage?) to Team America: World Police.
Nothing is taken seriously and the film works because of it. Not to say that it hasn't got some of the basics right as well. For a summer blockbuster, I'm not expecting intricate, detailed screenwriting on display but the conflict within the screenplay goes much further than what's been placed than its "bigger brother". The contrivances can be spotted a mile off, but the film is still far more engaging because of what happens to the characters within the (paper thin) plot.
Whereas Revenge of the fallen as the edge when it comes to acting (top character actors + cardboard characters = some energy) G.I wins out when it comes to character development. Don't get me wrong, this is not Macbeth, yet the people here are more fleshed out than the 294 minutes of both those Robot movies combined. Also, to Sommers credit, despite having what could be considered "lesser actors" Sommers manages cox a watchable performance out of most of them...EVEN MARLON WAYNES!!!! It is said that Waynes has given decent displays in the likes of Above the Rim and Requim for a Dream. Here Sommers manages to place Waynes in a role that doesn't make you want to punch him in the face. Quaid looks slightly embarrassed to be there but takes it all on the chin, while Christopher Eccleston and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ham everything up to 11...it works considering the movie is a silly one. A performance of note I may add is Sienna Miller. Usually an actress I care little about, Miller may have found her niche as an near emotionless villain....(lol). The less to say about the dull displays given to us by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje and Channing Tatum however the better.
Sommers directs G.I. with enough pace to stop the film from being boring and enough humour to distract us from the patchy plot. The action still suffers from the modern day hyper editing that has plagued many a action film but still manages to have fun moments. Sommers scores the most points by winking at the camera and nudges us in the ribs when the film hits the heights true heights of stupidity. The film is brainless but Sommers wants you to enjoy it for what it is. Many could say the same about some of the other blockbusters I've trashed, but Sommer keeps the tone just right. Like the rest of his back catalogue, Sommer's understands that this is nonsense, not a moment of it suffers from the portentousness that has struck other "event movies". This alone makes such a bizarre (and unbelievably violent) watchable.
The Summer of 2009 will not be the most memorable film season but at least at the end Stephen Sommers manages to bring out a guilty pleasure which brings about a sugar rush high that will help you forget the Angels and Demons of the year. But don't say I didn't warn you about the come down.
Listen to the podcast here
Monday, 3 August 2009
Review: Land of the Lost
Year: 2009
Director: Brad Silberling
Screenplay: Chris Henchy, Dennis McNicholas
Starring: Will Farrell, Anna Friel, Danny McBride
Land of the lost is so bad I went home and tried to pour mouthwash in my ears to try and cleanse my brain and erase my mind of its existence. Here is a film so naff that it annoyed me that the filmmakers spent so much money in making the film look so cheap. I won't bad mouth the effects a such because they are meant to look hokey. However at one point a dinosaurs arm goes right through Danny McBride's head. There's cheap and then there's damn lazy.
In fact when thinking about the movie again (mouthwash didn't work) the entire enterprise screams of a definite lack of trying. It's almost as if some switched on a camera and waiting for something funny to fall out of Will Farrell's mouth. Said camera must have been on for a long time because he says hardly anything of note here.
For me the best comic improvisation stems from having a amusing moment enhanced by the actor placing something unexpected upon it. Be it a look, a small line or some other inflection, the joke was already in place, the actor (or even the director) has merely built upon it. Land of the lost doesn't have any truly comic moments of note, so when Danny McBride and Will Farrell start to improvise, it's painfully obvious, to add to this, what they come up with is unbelievably bland with nothing to back it up.
It's obvious that this film will mean a hell of a lot more to those who were fans of the show (not me personally) but similar films out there (See: Galaxy Quest) know how to balance the films tone so that it respects the cult status of what it's making light of (In GQ's case Star Trek) but doesn't lose those who "don't get it". Here we are given crude jokes within an flavourless family adventure. To make things worse the jokes aren't even written particularly well, everything seems to rely on Farrell making something up on the spot with none of the "stylish" crassness that made Anchorman and Talladega Nights so amusing to me.
Usually I feel I'm the only person who these pompous thoughts, but no. A quick glance around the cinema and hardly a titter (except for the family next to me). I won't lie to you and say I didn't laugh at all, but the fact it didn't even reach double figures and is a "comedy" certainly says something.
It's not like director Brad Silberling hasn't done right with me before. I thoroughly enjoyed what he did with Lemony Snickets: A Series of Unfortunate Events and I didn't mind Casper when I was younger. I think the problem I have here is source material. It seems like the idea of going "all out" with a parody these days is merely smattering the words shit and fuck into sentences. Although it is hard to fall in love with "homages" like this. Case in point I have no problem with the Brady Bunch movie but that may be because it doesn't feel like a lengthened SNL skit.
From an actors point of view, if you like Will Farrell you won't give a damn what I'm telling you but quite simply, he doesn't work in this film. In fact it seems that he has trouble figuring out on whether he's the straight man or not and his performance is uneven. Danny McBride is in a land of limbo; both with me and his state within the film, while Anna Friel is spunky but underused, however those hot pants...well played costume design.
I won't say anymore about Land of the lost because there's not much else to say about it. It's a dry, flat movie which believes that sporadic laughs are the way forward in comedy believes it can rely on only it's vague premise to succeed. Ces't la vie.
Director: Brad Silberling
Screenplay: Chris Henchy, Dennis McNicholas
Starring: Will Farrell, Anna Friel, Danny McBride
Land of the lost is so bad I went home and tried to pour mouthwash in my ears to try and cleanse my brain and erase my mind of its existence. Here is a film so naff that it annoyed me that the filmmakers spent so much money in making the film look so cheap. I won't bad mouth the effects a such because they are meant to look hokey. However at one point a dinosaurs arm goes right through Danny McBride's head. There's cheap and then there's damn lazy.
In fact when thinking about the movie again (mouthwash didn't work) the entire enterprise screams of a definite lack of trying. It's almost as if some switched on a camera and waiting for something funny to fall out of Will Farrell's mouth. Said camera must have been on for a long time because he says hardly anything of note here.
For me the best comic improvisation stems from having a amusing moment enhanced by the actor placing something unexpected upon it. Be it a look, a small line or some other inflection, the joke was already in place, the actor (or even the director) has merely built upon it. Land of the lost doesn't have any truly comic moments of note, so when Danny McBride and Will Farrell start to improvise, it's painfully obvious, to add to this, what they come up with is unbelievably bland with nothing to back it up.
It's obvious that this film will mean a hell of a lot more to those who were fans of the show (not me personally) but similar films out there (See: Galaxy Quest) know how to balance the films tone so that it respects the cult status of what it's making light of (In GQ's case Star Trek) but doesn't lose those who "don't get it". Here we are given crude jokes within an flavourless family adventure. To make things worse the jokes aren't even written particularly well, everything seems to rely on Farrell making something up on the spot with none of the "stylish" crassness that made Anchorman and Talladega Nights so amusing to me.
Usually I feel I'm the only person who these pompous thoughts, but no. A quick glance around the cinema and hardly a titter (except for the family next to me). I won't lie to you and say I didn't laugh at all, but the fact it didn't even reach double figures and is a "comedy" certainly says something.
It's not like director Brad Silberling hasn't done right with me before. I thoroughly enjoyed what he did with Lemony Snickets: A Series of Unfortunate Events and I didn't mind Casper when I was younger. I think the problem I have here is source material. It seems like the idea of going "all out" with a parody these days is merely smattering the words shit and fuck into sentences. Although it is hard to fall in love with "homages" like this. Case in point I have no problem with the Brady Bunch movie but that may be because it doesn't feel like a lengthened SNL skit.
From an actors point of view, if you like Will Farrell you won't give a damn what I'm telling you but quite simply, he doesn't work in this film. In fact it seems that he has trouble figuring out on whether he's the straight man or not and his performance is uneven. Danny McBride is in a land of limbo; both with me and his state within the film, while Anna Friel is spunky but underused, however those hot pants...well played costume design.
I won't say anymore about Land of the lost because there's not much else to say about it. It's a dry, flat movie which believes that sporadic laughs are the way forward in comedy believes it can rely on only it's vague premise to succeed. Ces't la vie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)