Year: 2009
Director: Ruben Fleischer
Screenplay: Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin
Plot synopsis is here
For the last few days I've been ridiculously ill, with today was the first time I was able to drag myself out the house if only to the cinema briefly (no popcorn as it might up back up again) to watch Zombieland (such is my passion for film). I'm glad my half dead ass managed to make it to the cinema in order to watch these full dead asses terrorize Jesse Eisenberg and co.
While they've always been with us since Victor Halperin's White Zombie (1932), it was 2002's 28 Days Later which appeared to shove Zombies* into the true mainstream limelight. Two years later, the spaced crew (Frost, Pegg, Wright et all) release a film that quickly became a cult classic: Shaun of the Dead
Zombieland is a comedy which is clearly inspired (the director Fleischer has supposedly said this as well) by Edgar Wright's ode to an American monster with good ol British humor. And while Fleischer and co have a lot to learn when it comes to subtly, Zombieland was quite simply a bloody good laugh.
Zombieland lacks the layered, British, wit that is littered throughout Shaun of the Dead, but with it's visual rule list, kills of the week and superb cameo, (which is best left nameless to truly appreciate the brilliance of the casting) the film so in your face that it doesn't matter in the slightest. Hoping on the Zombie bandwagon, the film makes light of an extremely fucked up situation. The films plot is a fragile as a Kleenex but the films dialogue crackles and the characters keep you interested.
Fleischer (whose supposedly only watched one zombie film before) keeps his film light and breezy as we are introduced very quickly to our zombie killers who in turn get to know each and become a dysfunctional undead-murdering (?) family. The group a natural chemistry together and characters are way more entertaining to hang around than those you see in horror zombie films. This is a good thing because we spent a lot of the films running time with them, in fact the zombies are almost background for a lot of the time. However, when shoved in the forefront the film spares no expense in dispatching them in ludicrous and grotesque ways.
The star of the show is of course Woody Harrelson, an underrated actor whose Texan drawl works absolute wonders here. Consistantly funny throughout, his badass, live fast character is one part Mickey Knox, two parts Ash Campbell. While Jesse Eisenberg shows that you can have fun with the straight man character. Despite playing an anxious character there's a laid-back aspect that I couldn't ignore but enjoyed watching. Also note that Eisenberg was doing the Micheal Cera "thing" before him so this makes him the original**. Abigail Breslin is almost unrecognizable from Little miss sunshine (showing her range), while Emma Stone makes what could have been a bland character her own by infusing it with a sexy attitude, alleviating the love interest character into a more rounded figure***.
Zombieland is one of those cheer along films that is best enjoy with a bunch of beers and pizza. You can drink along to the rules, zombie kills and moments of good ol U.S wit. It's not Shaun of the dead, hell it's not even the superb Drag me to hell, but Zombie land can exist with them in it's own right. Why? The on point dialogue, the brief but fun action sequences, the friendship between the characters and that cameo....THAT Cameo will have zombie fans giggling for weeks. Original? Not really, but top points for effort and execution, and that's what counts. Quite simply a barrel (shotgun) full of laughs.
*They are not dead, just infected, it's stated in the god damn film. Get. Over. It.
** Roger Dodger was 2002 when Eisenberg started his awkward male bit, Arrested Development appeared after.
***When Emma Stone says in the sexy, husky voice she doesn't want drink alone...you join her.
Hear more talk about this movie at Geekplanetonline
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Beyonce + Wonder Woman = Fail
I know this was a while ago but it suddenly cropped up again on our WNATM podcast for some reason...Beyonce Knowles as wonder woman.
In my opinion? No, not really. I mean it's bold getting a (mediocre) non-actress to carry a film which could become a franchise. But having a Afro-American Wonder Woman for the sake of it is WRONG. There's a few issues that make the idea of having "Foxy Cleopatra" as Wonder Woman a difficultly (one being the desperate desire to appear "hip" and "with the times" being one of them) but the one I'm going to go with is of course alienating the fans and I really think you need them on your side for a project like this.
Also I wouldn't want John C Reilly to be fucking Shaft would I?
I'm watching you Hollywood
Being black, I would love to see more roles handed out to talented black actors/actresses and I would also love a kick ass superhero/comic book style film with a black lead sometime soon. But after the whole Daredevil debacle...
They tried it before...did it work? Did it fuck
"And it would be a very bold choice. A black Wonder Woman would be a powerful thing. It's time for that, right?"
In my opinion? No, not really. I mean it's bold getting a (mediocre) non-actress to carry a film which could become a franchise. But having a Afro-American Wonder Woman for the sake of it is WRONG. There's a few issues that make the idea of having "Foxy Cleopatra" as Wonder Woman a difficultly (one being the desperate desire to appear "hip" and "with the times" being one of them) but the one I'm going to go with is of course alienating the fans and I really think you need them on your side for a project like this.
Also I wouldn't want John C Reilly to be fucking Shaft would I?
I'm watching you HollywoodBeing black, I would love to see more roles handed out to talented black actors/actresses and I would also love a kick ass superhero/comic book style film with a black lead sometime soon. But after the whole Daredevil debacle...
They tried it before...did it work? Did it fuckI'm sure this rumor will evaporate like the proverbial fart in the wind but while it lingers. Please for the love of God can we not have Xania from the Pink Panther as Wonder Woman.
Hear more drunken ramblings on the Geekplanet podcast
Hear more drunken ramblings on the Geekplanet podcast
Friday, 9 October 2009
Review: S. Darko
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)