Year: 2009
Director: Chris Fisher
Screenplay: Nathan Atkins
Starring: Daveigh Chase, Briana Evigan, James Lafferty, Ed Westwick
Plot Synopsis is here
Like a few people out there, I'm a big Donnie Darko fan. I was in college when the film was released and I remember how it blew my mind. I love how bold the film was as well as it's inventiveness but first and furthermore, I loved how it made me feel. Cheesy? Yes, but lets get one thing straight, this is one of my favorite movies. Richard Kelly's career since it's release has been an odd one at best but his Theatrical Cut of DD will always be a work of untainted brilliance to me.
Which brings me to S. Darko, a needless (direct to DVD) sequel to Kelly's 2001 cult hit. It would be easy for a fan like me to straight out hate the film but no that's too easy, Instead I pity it.
S Darko is a film with no true creativity of its own, nor is it a film that gives a damn about the fans (as much as the filmmakers may say), it's easy to see from the iconography thrown into the film that the higher ups behind the film are looking to reap in as much money as possible using the Darko "brand". Links to the first film are tenuous at best and the film tries to make up for it by nicking lines and shots from the first film and jumbling them around a bit.
The main problem of S Darko however is this; IT HAS NO EMOTIONAL CORE. The original Donnie Darko (sci-fi aside) was a teen dramedy of John Hughes-esque angst. Kelly wasn't at one time considered a wunderkind for no reason and Darko appeared to be evidence of this. The film confidently straddled many genres without losing it's tone and atmosphere. S Darko has no identity of it's own and it's clearly evident by how much it steals from it's big brother, but it doesn't know why. It has no heart of its own and desperately looks towards the first film for shallow inspiration.
A clear example would be the liberal borrowing (read stealing) of the virtuoso high school sequence shot in Donnie Darko . This scene not only looks good but sets up surroundings,introduces characters and prepares us for the next scene. Here director Chris Fisher uses the same filming techniques at a party scene but the shot means nothing only to exist because something similar was done in the first film. This is constantly done throughout the film with little thought behind why other than "people will remember it from the first film" and because of this the film becomes exceedingly trite and a slog to get through.
There's no help either from the film's weak and stilted screenplay which a mish mesh of re-hashed plotlines, forced wit and bizarre for the sake of it characters. From an acting point of few there's really nothing to talk about, the film is merely a stop gap for the young actors who have already moved onto something new.
It's not all bad. Fisher is obviously a competent director and the visuals of the film are at points better than some of the things you'd see in a cinematic release, while the choice of music while not as well observed as the first film (with an amazing Micheal Andrews score) it's still pretty strong considering.
It's just a shame that the film is so lackluster. It's a sequel that doesn't want to live out of it's brothers shadow. For some they may be able look at this with fresh eyes and gain something new out of it. For myself, I don't feel too bad that I watched it, but I do feel better that I won't have to watch it again.
Friday, 9 October 2009
Monday, 5 October 2009
Review: The Invention of Lying
Year: 2009
Director: Ricky Grevais, Matt Robinson
Screenplay: Ricky Grevais, Matt Robinson
Starring: Ricky Grevais, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe
Plot Synopsis is here
I found two reviews of Ricky Grevais debut feature film comedy that are so far apart it's almost untrue. The first is a damming review by Empire while the second is a glowing one from Roger Ebert. It would be easy to get into personal snipes at Eberts "leniency" or Empire's "dubious" ratings, but it's best not. A part of me would like to think the reason for such a difference in opinion is a cross-Atlantic one. The U.S are now in love with our comic import at this moment while we've had the guy for quite a while, So while his popularity is at its peak with the yanks, in Blighty our usual lack of patience for anyone successful is beginning to show.
After watching the film I almost felt that both reviews were right, leaving my opinion rather in the middle. Ebert considers the film to be quite radical and indeed I found myself astonished at moments of he film. By subverting it's simple idea, the film manages to allow some heavy moments to slip out of it's goofy outer shell. The film may look happy go lucky but the material sheds some light on some dark aspects of humanity. I won't say too much but I found it's talk on religion to be quite startling, not because I believe but more that the film gets away with it. It's this frank look at some of the "big" questions that shows that Grevais (a self-confessed Athieist) is clearly in the driving seat of this and many of his comedy vehicles and not Stephen Merchant as the Empire review mockingly states.
However, with a film willing to expand it's themes beyond the average comedy, it's a shame that the film is so one note in actual jokes. The Invention of Lying believes that in a world were everyone is compelled to tell the truth, they are all arseholes. Sympathy is not an option here and the film wishes to tell us this at length. Truth means insults here and apart from maybe one scene, everyone who tells the truth must not only do it bluntly but with added hatred. The (only) gag gets tired very quickly and despite some inspired moments (the coke/pepsi joke is amusing) the comedy struggles to keep up with the grander themes that the film wanted to look into.
When it comes to performances, it all depends on how you feel about Ricky Grevais. It's a very typical Grevais delivery which is of course well timed but just like maramite you'll either cry laughing or break you teeth from all the grinding you'll be doing. Jennifer Garner and Rob Lowe have their moments but due to the lack of depth with the comedy you will soon grow tired of their insults. The film is also filled with needless celebrity cameos which range from funny to bland. It's clear that the only reason for them is of course the amount of influence that Grevais has now, however it does nothing to enhance the movie in any way.
A first time co directional debut (with Matt Robinson) for Grevais, The Invention of Lying is intermittently funny and struggles to find the balance of great involving comedy and the grand themes it tries to bring about. Die hards will of course love what Mr Brent has got to offer this time, however those like the writers at Empire who have appeared to have grown weary of the man may wish to look elsewhere.
Hear Byron talk more about this movie at geekplanetonline
Director: Ricky Grevais, Matt Robinson
Screenplay: Ricky Grevais, Matt Robinson
Starring: Ricky Grevais, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe
Plot Synopsis is here
I found two reviews of Ricky Grevais debut feature film comedy that are so far apart it's almost untrue. The first is a damming review by Empire while the second is a glowing one from Roger Ebert. It would be easy to get into personal snipes at Eberts "leniency" or Empire's "dubious" ratings, but it's best not. A part of me would like to think the reason for such a difference in opinion is a cross-Atlantic one. The U.S are now in love with our comic import at this moment while we've had the guy for quite a while, So while his popularity is at its peak with the yanks, in Blighty our usual lack of patience for anyone successful is beginning to show.
After watching the film I almost felt that both reviews were right, leaving my opinion rather in the middle. Ebert considers the film to be quite radical and indeed I found myself astonished at moments of he film. By subverting it's simple idea, the film manages to allow some heavy moments to slip out of it's goofy outer shell. The film may look happy go lucky but the material sheds some light on some dark aspects of humanity. I won't say too much but I found it's talk on religion to be quite startling, not because I believe but more that the film gets away with it. It's this frank look at some of the "big" questions that shows that Grevais (a self-confessed Athieist) is clearly in the driving seat of this and many of his comedy vehicles and not Stephen Merchant as the Empire review mockingly states.
However, with a film willing to expand it's themes beyond the average comedy, it's a shame that the film is so one note in actual jokes. The Invention of Lying believes that in a world were everyone is compelled to tell the truth, they are all arseholes. Sympathy is not an option here and the film wishes to tell us this at length. Truth means insults here and apart from maybe one scene, everyone who tells the truth must not only do it bluntly but with added hatred. The (only) gag gets tired very quickly and despite some inspired moments (the coke/pepsi joke is amusing) the comedy struggles to keep up with the grander themes that the film wanted to look into.
When it comes to performances, it all depends on how you feel about Ricky Grevais. It's a very typical Grevais delivery which is of course well timed but just like maramite you'll either cry laughing or break you teeth from all the grinding you'll be doing. Jennifer Garner and Rob Lowe have their moments but due to the lack of depth with the comedy you will soon grow tired of their insults. The film is also filled with needless celebrity cameos which range from funny to bland. It's clear that the only reason for them is of course the amount of influence that Grevais has now, however it does nothing to enhance the movie in any way.
A first time co directional debut (with Matt Robinson) for Grevais, The Invention of Lying is intermittently funny and struggles to find the balance of great involving comedy and the grand themes it tries to bring about. Die hards will of course love what Mr Brent has got to offer this time, however those like the writers at Empire who have appeared to have grown weary of the man may wish to look elsewhere.
Hear Byron talk more about this movie at geekplanetonline
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Review: Surveillance
Year: 2008 (U.K Cinematic Release: 2009)
Director: Jennifer Lynch
Screenplay: Kent Harper, Jennifer Chambers Lynch
Starring: Bill Pullman, Julia Ormond, Ryan Simpkins
Patience is often need when the name Lynch is stated in film credits, because often the film's are slow burning mysteries, although usually not in the conventional sense. Usually it takes time for the film to process in the viewers mind. For me, as the fragmented aspects of the film slowly fall into place, I'm never too bothered if I don't get it at once because a David Lynch film is one that is usually never boring for me (exceptions being The Lost Highway and Wild at Heart). A David Lynch film is one that deals more with emotions, tone and atmosphere rather than set logic and some people like, while others don't.
For Surveillance, however it takes more than patience just to get to the end credits. This is a film that claims it's a thriller and yet doesn't thrill. It is a film which states it's premise in it's title but renders it's message a gimmicky mess. This is a film which has actors within it that have brought about entertaining turns in film and T.V but have decided to leave their acting chops at home.
The Lynch we will be talking about here is Jennifer (David's daughter), a woman who was critically destroyed over 15 years ago with her box office bomb Boxing Helena. It appears that the bashing she got affected her work so much that she hasn't really been behind a camera since until now. With this said it seems that perhaps the reasons why critics disliked her debut before, have come back to haunt her once again on this film.
I haven't yet watched Boxing Helena but will one day make time to watch it. However, I have read a few reviews about it. A glance at meta critic will give you blurbs such as:
Surveillance has been likened to Rashomon in it's fractured telling of witnesses recanting a gruesome tale of events. Rashomon worked as the story being told, varied so much that the conclusion was left ambiguously for the viewer to judge. It's a beautifully delicate story. Surveillance suffers because Lynch lays all her cards out on the table way too quickly. Within 5 minutes I knew the ending of the story due to the poor handling of the narrative. This ruins the films insight of it's main theme: Perceptive. Lynch does nothing to askew the viewers judgment and because of this there's no tension. Lynch does nothing to disorient the viewer and so with with the ending firmly within the viewers mind, the film proceeds to trudge along at a lethargic pace complete with a lackluster script and "kooky" performances that stick out for no other reason other than the fact that they're so awkward.
Bill Pullman is the main culprit, blundering through his lines like a amateur drama student. It's a performance full of mawkish visual tics and line readings that sound like the actor is constipated. It's horrible to watch. Other performances fare slightly better but only slightly, the only stand out display is that of Ryan Simpkins who is to be the only watchable (and normal) aspect to this carnival of outcasts.
It also doesn't help that the film lacks the intensity that Father Lynch loads within his films. The film has some brutal looking visuals but it's nothing that I haven't seen before in other, stronger films. Lynch's movie is far to conventional in almost every aspect accept her characters which would like better in a film of her dad's then her own.
On the plus side the film has some nice sound production and I love the setting but so what? In a film with only one or two locations, where the hell is the claustrophobia? where the sense of dread? The film is far too see through for it's own good and despite the directors' intentions, anyone whose seen more than a few movies of this caliber will not be impressed.
While it's horrible to compare father to daughter in such a way Surveillance does nothing to separate the two filmmakers. It's clear that Jennifer wishes to operate in the same nasty recesses that her father does. The difference of course is flair. Like him or not a David Lynch film can usually brings a wild array of emotions. For his daughter however Surveillance can only bring boredom.
Director: Jennifer Lynch
Screenplay: Kent Harper, Jennifer Chambers Lynch
Starring: Bill Pullman, Julia Ormond, Ryan Simpkins
Patience is often need when the name Lynch is stated in film credits, because often the film's are slow burning mysteries, although usually not in the conventional sense. Usually it takes time for the film to process in the viewers mind. For me, as the fragmented aspects of the film slowly fall into place, I'm never too bothered if I don't get it at once because a David Lynch film is one that is usually never boring for me (exceptions being The Lost Highway and Wild at Heart). A David Lynch film is one that deals more with emotions, tone and atmosphere rather than set logic and some people like, while others don't.
For Surveillance, however it takes more than patience just to get to the end credits. This is a film that claims it's a thriller and yet doesn't thrill. It is a film which states it's premise in it's title but renders it's message a gimmicky mess. This is a film which has actors within it that have brought about entertaining turns in film and T.V but have decided to leave their acting chops at home.
The Lynch we will be talking about here is Jennifer (David's daughter), a woman who was critically destroyed over 15 years ago with her box office bomb Boxing Helena. It appears that the bashing she got affected her work so much that she hasn't really been behind a camera since until now. With this said it seems that perhaps the reasons why critics disliked her debut before, have come back to haunt her once again on this film.
I haven't yet watched Boxing Helena but will one day make time to watch it. However, I have read a few reviews about it. A glance at meta critic will give you blurbs such as:
"Lynch's fatal flaw is in her handling of the leads."
TV Guide - Michael GingoldOr
"This film has all the psychological depth of a wading pool. Anything you've imagined without seeing the movie is likely more interesting than what's here."Now while I'm not the biggest fan of blurbs, these quotes about Lynch's debut, ring true here as well. As a director Jennifer Lynch has none of the panache or verve of her father (who happens to executive producer of this), be it in handling actors, maintaining tone or keeping the story interesting.
Austin Chronicle - Robert Faires
Surveillance has been likened to Rashomon in it's fractured telling of witnesses recanting a gruesome tale of events. Rashomon worked as the story being told, varied so much that the conclusion was left ambiguously for the viewer to judge. It's a beautifully delicate story. Surveillance suffers because Lynch lays all her cards out on the table way too quickly. Within 5 minutes I knew the ending of the story due to the poor handling of the narrative. This ruins the films insight of it's main theme: Perceptive. Lynch does nothing to askew the viewers judgment and because of this there's no tension. Lynch does nothing to disorient the viewer and so with with the ending firmly within the viewers mind, the film proceeds to trudge along at a lethargic pace complete with a lackluster script and "kooky" performances that stick out for no other reason other than the fact that they're so awkward.
Bill Pullman is the main culprit, blundering through his lines like a amateur drama student. It's a performance full of mawkish visual tics and line readings that sound like the actor is constipated. It's horrible to watch. Other performances fare slightly better but only slightly, the only stand out display is that of Ryan Simpkins who is to be the only watchable (and normal) aspect to this carnival of outcasts.
It also doesn't help that the film lacks the intensity that Father Lynch loads within his films. The film has some brutal looking visuals but it's nothing that I haven't seen before in other, stronger films. Lynch's movie is far to conventional in almost every aspect accept her characters which would like better in a film of her dad's then her own.
On the plus side the film has some nice sound production and I love the setting but so what? In a film with only one or two locations, where the hell is the claustrophobia? where the sense of dread? The film is far too see through for it's own good and despite the directors' intentions, anyone whose seen more than a few movies of this caliber will not be impressed.
While it's horrible to compare father to daughter in such a way Surveillance does nothing to separate the two filmmakers. It's clear that Jennifer wishes to operate in the same nasty recesses that her father does. The difference of course is flair. Like him or not a David Lynch film can usually brings a wild array of emotions. For his daughter however Surveillance can only bring boredom.
Monday, 28 September 2009
A Nightmare on elm street trailer.
If you can't see the trailer go here.
Although some of the worlds greatest films have been remakes or reinterpretations of an original text (See the trivia of The Seven Samurai or The Hidden Fortress and see what movies they became by Hollywood), I''m always a little skeptical of the modern remake. They usually appear to be a regurgitation of the original story, while missing the important moments which made the first film so effective. Even the hills have eyes remake, a film I really dug missed the message that Wes Craven crammed into his brutal 1977 film.
Craven, synonymous with the horror genre, gave his blessing to the director of the 2006 remake, however his name is mostly missing from here. Reason? He doesn't own the rights to his most influential work.
A Nightmare on elm street (and perhaps New Nightmare) is for me the Gem in Craven's work. Inventive, dark, twisted and with a morbid sense of humour which almost ruined the series until the aforementioned New Nightmare.
Ignoring the Micheal Bay production credit, This new nightmare appears to have hints of what made the original so entertaining for me. The effects we have now should improve the admittedly dated effects while the shots show that they wish to keep the original narrative, iconography and themes intact (we hope). Personally I can't wait, and although I was a little underwhelmed by Jackie Earl Haley's Freddie, I was more than excited by everything else.
Good times I hope!
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Review: Surrogates
Year: 2009
Director: Jonathon Mostow
Screenplay: Michael Ferris John D Brancato
Starring: Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, Rosemund Pike, Ving Rhames
Plot synopsis is here
Despite having what some might say a dubious filmmaking crew behind them (the creators of Terminator 3 and Catwoman no doubt.) Surrogates brings about an interesting premise and a fun ride for it's short running time. Going almost the way of Gamer with a sprinkling of Asimov Surrogates tells us a tale of a world where we as humans can live however we want in perfect safety due to the fact that we would spend our waking day within a robotic "Surrogate". They don't feel pain, they can look as beautiful as they want, they are quite simply perfect avatars.
This year has been one for sci-fi avatars, with the over hyped but strangely compelling Avatar project on it's way and the horrendous Gamer only being released recently, Surrogates almost comes about as over kill as once again we as we humans decide that we're so sick of who we are that we must hide behind outlandish representation of ourselves in order to live.
Unlike the aforementioned Gamer, Surrogates believes that plot comes first before style. And despite the film's narrative is a pretty standard detective story, the screenplays intriguing world director J Mostow's maturing direction gives the viewer a much more thoughtful and entertaining film than Neveldine & Taylor's one note, over edited piece of tripe.
It helps a lot that Surrogates has a stronger cast than N&T's attractive but bland Gerard Butler. Bruce Willis is here doing what he does best but without even breaking a sweat. He is joined by a solid support cast, with the likes of Mitchell, Pike, Kojoe and Ving Rhames bring up the rear, and while none are particular stand outs, they manage to keep the film chugging along to the films conclusion.
Although lifted from many other aspects of sci-fi and pulp thriller, Surrogates manages to feel fresh with it's plot twists due to Mostow's confident telling of the story. Unlike certain aspects of Terminator 3, the film keeps to the right tone while maintaining a delightfully twisted sense of humor. At one point we see a war being fought by the U.S army despite every solder controlling a Surrogate from the safety of the military base, making war even more farcical than it already is. Moments like this keep the interest up as Surrogates is actually willing to ponder the premises implications (albeit briefly). At one point we see a nerdy white scientist has decided to have a Surrogate of a tall handsome black man. This is not shown a preserve display a la Gamer, but simply an amusing aside which shows the amount of power that the idea has.
The film's action is slighter than I expected, but far more interesting than a lot of what I've seen this year. The film also quick to display the advantages and limitations of the films characters. I particularity like the contrast of action when Willis' character is no longer controlling his avatar compared to when he is. In a world where Stallone still believes Rambo is as sharp now as he was over 20 years ago, it's good to see an actor like Willis playing more towards his age, although the grizzled, vulnerable, underdog as mentioned before, is something that Bruce has no trouble in pulling.
The style is slick, the plot is entertaining and the film doesn't over stay its welcome. Surrogates is the film Gamer really should have been. Mostow's film manages to land on the right side of sci-fi and provided me with a smile on my face when leaving the cinema and despite what my friends think, that's all I ever want when I go to the cinema.
Hear Byron talk more about this movie at Geekplanetonline
Director: Jonathon Mostow
Screenplay: Michael Ferris John D Brancato
Starring: Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, Rosemund Pike, Ving Rhames
Plot synopsis is here
Despite having what some might say a dubious filmmaking crew behind them (the creators of Terminator 3 and Catwoman no doubt.) Surrogates brings about an interesting premise and a fun ride for it's short running time. Going almost the way of Gamer with a sprinkling of Asimov Surrogates tells us a tale of a world where we as humans can live however we want in perfect safety due to the fact that we would spend our waking day within a robotic "Surrogate". They don't feel pain, they can look as beautiful as they want, they are quite simply perfect avatars.
This year has been one for sci-fi avatars, with the over hyped but strangely compelling Avatar project on it's way and the horrendous Gamer only being released recently, Surrogates almost comes about as over kill as once again we as we humans decide that we're so sick of who we are that we must hide behind outlandish representation of ourselves in order to live.
Unlike the aforementioned Gamer, Surrogates believes that plot comes first before style. And despite the film's narrative is a pretty standard detective story, the screenplays intriguing world director J Mostow's maturing direction gives the viewer a much more thoughtful and entertaining film than Neveldine & Taylor's one note, over edited piece of tripe.
It helps a lot that Surrogates has a stronger cast than N&T's attractive but bland Gerard Butler. Bruce Willis is here doing what he does best but without even breaking a sweat. He is joined by a solid support cast, with the likes of Mitchell, Pike, Kojoe and Ving Rhames bring up the rear, and while none are particular stand outs, they manage to keep the film chugging along to the films conclusion.
Although lifted from many other aspects of sci-fi and pulp thriller, Surrogates manages to feel fresh with it's plot twists due to Mostow's confident telling of the story. Unlike certain aspects of Terminator 3, the film keeps to the right tone while maintaining a delightfully twisted sense of humor. At one point we see a war being fought by the U.S army despite every solder controlling a Surrogate from the safety of the military base, making war even more farcical than it already is. Moments like this keep the interest up as Surrogates is actually willing to ponder the premises implications (albeit briefly). At one point we see a nerdy white scientist has decided to have a Surrogate of a tall handsome black man. This is not shown a preserve display a la Gamer, but simply an amusing aside which shows the amount of power that the idea has.
The film's action is slighter than I expected, but far more interesting than a lot of what I've seen this year. The film also quick to display the advantages and limitations of the films characters. I particularity like the contrast of action when Willis' character is no longer controlling his avatar compared to when he is. In a world where Stallone still believes Rambo is as sharp now as he was over 20 years ago, it's good to see an actor like Willis playing more towards his age, although the grizzled, vulnerable, underdog as mentioned before, is something that Bruce has no trouble in pulling.
The style is slick, the plot is entertaining and the film doesn't over stay its welcome. Surrogates is the film Gamer really should have been. Mostow's film manages to land on the right side of sci-fi and provided me with a smile on my face when leaving the cinema and despite what my friends think, that's all I ever want when I go to the cinema.
Hear Byron talk more about this movie at Geekplanetonline
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)