Year: 2009
Director: David Twohy
Screenplay: David Twohy
Starring: Steve Zahn, Milla Jovovich, Timothy Olyphant
After leaving the cinema all i had to say was hummmmm. I guess I'll give A Perfect Getaway an A for effort as for the most part the film is well acted and the setting is perfect for the film. It's a shame that A Perfect Getaway has a third act that disrupts the tone far too much to be satisfying. Many will complain about the films twist (which Twohy placed a lot on) but the revel doesn't bother me, it's everything after said reveal that annoys.
When the films opening titles came up I took a shot about the films twist and because I watch too many movies I was right. This wasn't too much of an issue because David Twohy's (Pitch Black) script is snappy, and his direction does just enough to distract me from my smugness. Since Eli Roth's Hostel, horror and thriller have been doing the rounds in various tourist traps and Twohy makes sure that Hawaii is shot the best. A Perfect Getaway reminds me of films like The Decent, in which the films surroundings become part of the film. It subtly shows how easily something bad could happen in such a place and how simple it could be to disappear. Twohy balances this with playful character interaction drawing up some smart performances from the leads, with Steve Zahn in particular looking the most grateful, finally being allowed to have some range and not play the Zany sidekick.
For the most part this is all well crafted and while other reviews have claimed that the films build up is boring, I was having a blast. That is, until the films climax. Twohy's suddenly shoves the film into overdrive and once the films pulls the rug from under you, it decides that character motivations are no longer important, and contrivance is far more interesting than anything that happened before hand. It's clear that Twohy wants to play around with the "tourist torture" sub-genre, but if that's the case why does everything fall apart after the reveal? It's at this point that the film should tighten it's grip, instead the film becomes more flimsy in logic.
The film becomes more violent but not for the better because I don't buy what the characters do after the rug pull. Actions just don't ring true and the high amount of violence does nothing to distract the fact that Twohy kills the films rhythm and pace by placing an overlong flashback explaining the ins and outs of said twist. It doesn't help that more characters are introduced for no reason other then to up the body count, but by the time this happens I've already lost interest.
Twohy once again shows that he is a solid enough genre filmmaker, however A Perfect Getaway takes a wrong turn before the final hurdle and with that fails to finish satisfyingly. The holiday hell thriller still has legs in it before it gets stale, but those looking for something a little fresher may need to look elsewhere.
Listen to the podcast here
Friday, 14 August 2009
Monday, 10 August 2009
Review: Lesbian Vampire Killers
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)