Review: Red State

Year: 2011

Director: Kevin Smith

Screenplay: Kevin Smith

Starring: John Goodman, Michael Parks, Melissa Leo

Synopsis is here:

I'm not sure about other film fans but I've wanted to see this movie since it was first announced (mid 2007?). The idea of a Kevin Smith Horror film appealed to me, but the idea of a Kevin Smith horror film based on the religious right of America? How could I not be there? 

However despite this a lot has happened in the world of Kevin Smith and unfortunately not a lot of it I would consider that positive. For you see for sometime now Mr Smith has really had it out for those who dislike his movies, namely the critics and bloggers who are invited to press screenings. Since Cop Out gaining some of the worse reviews of his career, Smith has gone all out with all sort of attacks on those who write about film. His Twitter now a base of operations with a large allegiance of fans who will blindly attack anyone who says otherwise about the man's actions. 

Seeing how Smith has acted, reacted and lashed out to those who oppose him has been a strange experience. It's obvious that Smith's films; no matter which ones they may be, are extremely close to him and so they should as they are his works (although I've never got why Cop Out got him the most worked up) and I do find Smith's ideas with distribution intriguing ones. However, Smith's way of going about things seems to be based more on personal grudges and getting people out of joint than anything else. To his his movies is to have a personal slight on the man himself and I know for a lot of people the thought of that is just not true. 

The issue is; now Smith has made things personal, bridges will burn and relationships will crumble. Smith's fan base will keep the man going until the day he dies, but what about his idea of releasing films made by other people under his methods of independent distribution? Smith wants to change the game but the game isn't ready to play ball yet and Smith's wish to personally call everyone out and insult those who have a differing opinion could affect the very people he's trying to bring up. 

All these thoughts, twitter rants and otherwise cloud the fact that Kevin Smith has made an "It's a nasty-ass $4mil horror flick with few (if any) redeeming characters." All the posturing, throwing the toys out of the pram and general unpleasantness should detract that Red State; part religious right horror, part action siege, is in my opinion, the strongest work he's done in years.

Smith, never really considered as a "visual" director has re-invented himself here, giving himself aesthetic that pushes the authenticity of the universe he's written. The drab and sparse art direction of the church, the dropped frame rate and use of handheld digital, the obtuse angles and awkward close ups all work here. There is a beauty in the ugliness of it all, reminiscent of Texas Chainsaw Massacre (The roadkill, the chainsaw dance during sunset) or The Wicker Man (the climax), that Smith manages to capture and he's done it by taking risks within himself. It's simple things like seeing corpses in a cold stock room while Michael Parks' demented preacher's whiskey smooth, middle American drawl sings psalms over the soundtrack or the offbeat editing which aids the uncomfortable vibe the film gives off.   

The discomfort is centralised by a titanic performance by one Michael Parks. Parks allows the Phelps-like Abin Cooper is both snake charmer and snake. The sweetness of his voice seems to never let you forget that there is sin behind those eyes. Parks' Charisma is what takes us through the film's middle act, a lengthy, character building monologue not only tells us all we need to know about the darker aspects of the church but also how easily Parks has charmed them. His words sound warm but the fear is there in harsh and Swift retribution which is quickly and silently dealt out without argument. While Parks is the charm, Melissa Leo is the hysteria. In a role which, while predicable and trite at times (See The Mist or The Omen for similar and better displays), never the less bounces off every well with Parks more "subtly" devious role. Rounding off a trio of solid performances is a straight edged display by one John Goodman, his face betrays the look of a man whose knowing, tired and still unsure about everything falling around him. 

Unsure is the most important word for Red State as it is a film that is constantly questioning the idea of trust and blind faith. Many characters place so much trust in those above them in command only for them to fall to a fate most heinous. Ideals of faith are questioned at all sides and as clear as this is a work of fiction, Once the bullets start flying there's the niggling feeling that this is where things can go. The shadows of Waco hover over the film and the mixture of the such themes and the films aesthetics help give off an unconventional and yet tenable feel to proceedings.

Smith's decision to create a film that deals with horror that's more closer to home is far more commendable idea than the spite of remakes and generic genre fare that the U.S (mostly mainstream) have had to contend with. It plays out almost like an American version of Frontiers but of course it's nowhere near as extreme (read gory). It's a shame that there are flaws that hang out for all to see. While I have no problem with the film flipping between genres or even tone (who knew that Smith could create action sequence as visceral as he does) the narrative that hangs everything together should be better, especially from a writer like Smith. Scenes often clunk together and don't feel as organic as they could. It's great having John Goodman in the film but do we really need him on the phone basically spouting off exposition so late in the game? I don't need lovable characters but Smith wish for no one as likeable takes away so much tension. To rack up the fear we need someone to latch on to truly. The teens we start off with a left behind as soon as we hit the compound, Cooper is a personification of evil and Goodman enters far too ate in the game.

We also have lots of secondary characters but why are they so silent? Why do many of the family members add nothing to the narrative in terms of character? With all the chaos that Smith gives us why is everything tied up so neatly? The script also features humour that doesn't have to be added? Do we really need the films last (off screen) line for instance? Maybe Smith wished to diffuse the situation slightly with a bit of lightness but I like the questions he asked and I would have liked the film even more if he didn't feel the need to answer everything.

Never the less, there's an edge to the movie that I really liked, something that keeps the attention and it's not Smith's wit this time round. It's the subject matter and the approach to proceedings. It's the coldness that hides behind that warm exterior of Cooper, it's the idea that the more "touched" members of society are stockpiling for a war they believe is coming and one mistake could set everything off. After watching Red State, I was considering re watching the film again. To squeeze even out of the juicy bits of the film. Smith's is retiring after Hit Somebody. Watching Red State makes me hope it's a sabbatical. 

Review: Super

Year: 2011 (U.K release 2011)
Director: James Gunn
Screenplay: James Gunn
Starring: Rainn Wilson, Ellen Page, Liv Tyler, Kevin Bacon

Synopsis is here

So James Gunn's Super rears it's head upon whining that it's just the same as Kick-Ass by people who didn't read the memo on Defendor and Special which both slipped under the radar. Hell even at a stretch you could bemoan that Mystery Men is almost kinda like Kick-Ass but only at a stretch. That's aside, it's no surprise to see that with similar material Matthew Vaughan brings a slick piece of gloss to the big screen, while Gunn's Super is a little darker, murkier and reminiscent of his twisted Troma roots. Super appears to us with a much more visceral look to the beatings on screen and a more troubled insight to the psyche of some of the tortured minds of these wannabe superheroes. Needless to say, Kick-ass doesn't have a squid like creature opening up a characters skull in order for the finger of god to poke the brain inside.

If that last sentence piqued your interest then you will be more than fine with Super, I know I was. I reacted to the film in the same way I reacted to Observe and Report in that you shouldn't laugh at what's gong down but the timing and absurdness of it all makes it hard not to. It revels in it's irrelevance but it also works as it has a  Rainn Wilson performance that towers over his great comedic work in The American Office. There's a softness in his quieter moments that helps elevate the performance as Wilson balance his troubled character with equal amounts of pity and pathos.  The humour is there too as his zealous yelling of "SHUT UP CRIME" were always able to make me crack a smile.

Wilson is joined by a game cast with Liv Tyler and Micheal Rooker being underused but solid enough while Kevin Bacon takes a sleazy bite of scenery once more, as he did in recent comic-book feature X-men: First Class. Ellen Page lets loose in a bizarre little role as a geeky side-kick to Wilson's Frank. However despite the film clearly being an offbeat character piece, the moments with her character seemed underwritten. I get the feeling that Gunn could have done even more with such a character, unfortunately Page's Libby is left a little to the wayside, as it a plot strand with Gregg Henry's Detective role who quickly loses important once his main scene is done.

This doesn't distract from the main fact that Super; with it's over the top violence and dark comedy, is still an entertaining distraction. While Kick-Ass lightened some elements of the original material to make it a bit more palatable to those who didn't read the comic, Super keeps things as black as it can giving the film a weird super hero, king of comedy vibe. A guy like me who knows of Gunn's z-list beginnings, found it easy to get on board with the offering we get here. For others I give you the litmus test: Ellen Page talking about her "gushy" genitals while donned in a super hero costume. Not liking that? Best avoid the movie.

Review: The Inbetweeners Movie

Year: 2011
Director: Ben Palmer
Screenplay: Iain Morris, Damon Beesley
Starring:  Simon Bird, James Buckley, Blake Harrison, Joe Thomas

Synopsis is here:

Any readership outside of the U.K will probably shrug their shoulders at this review as I can't see it making waves at their shores. However for us Brits, The inbetweeners is sitting pretty at the top of the U.K box office at time of writing. It's not hard to see why, as the show has been a bit of a revelation for some of the generation here. From an overzealous yell of "BUS WANKERS!" from some twonk in a Nova, to the double thumbs up "friend" comment you get from mates after you suggest your going to see someone else. There's sayings and moments from the shows three seasons that have just got absorbed into our conscious and are likely to stay there as E4 will repeat the show as much as they do Friends, as is the method of channels these days.

The fact that a film of these four failures didn't really surprise me as much as the speed of the turnaround. I swear I only just heard about the film being made about 9 months ago. But then when dealing with a show that's at it's peak of popularity and a cast that can only pretend to be 18 for so long (lead Simon Bird is only a year younger than myself at 26) it's probably the best time to strike.

The Inbetweeners movie is perfect for people who are fans of the show. While it doesn't alienate newcomers with nothing but in jokes, it does display the friendship and closeness built by the main cast members. This and the films writing by the shows creators are what the film what it is; coming off like a English version of porky's but with a familiarly that made the show a hit in the first place.  We like these saps because we all knew versions of them at school. They're harmless and the mean well, but they're so struck dumb by their social awkwardness that it hurts. Yes, they are crude but their lack of knowing any better does get them through. The spiritedness and knowing naivety of of the characters overwhelm the more base elements and while it's clear that the leads are still a little T.V green, the chemistry is there throughout.  It's what makes the inbetweeners what they are; the lack of mean spiritedness that resides in many American counterparts.

It's good that the dialogue and set pieces are also on par with the show as they still have the ability to hit the funny bone, especially if you're a fan. Not only it's needed in a comedy, but it takes away from the fact that the film could have easily been a made for T.V movie and be just as successful. The film is very televisual in design, and save for a couple of moments, it doesn't not feel very cinematic. Moments of sentimentality are often cumbersome, plot strands stand out awkwardly and there were more than one moment in which neither laughter nor sympathy could be displayed as the story struggles to win us over with it's thinly spread narrative.

I will say however that I've laughed harder in this than many of the comedies that have come out recently. This was everything that Hangover 2 was not in my opinion, lacking the spitefulness that features in that film (and Due Date for that matter) but playing up the hype and disappointment of those "lads" holidays, embarrassing parents and the genuine awkwardness of place that came with the show. It'll find it's place on the shelves of fans and to be honest, that's what it was looking for.

Review: Cowboys and Aliens

Year: 2011
Director: Jon Favreau
Screenplay:  Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby
Starring: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, Sam Rockwell

Synopsis is here

When I first posted the trailer for Cowboys and Aliens on my facebook wall, my favourite reaction was from a good friend of mine who was perplexed by the sheer fact that the film had even been greenlighted. I must admit that I chucked at his outcry. As a film fan it's no real surprise to me that things like Cowboys & Aliens get made. One only needs such to search the the imdb for such cinematic delights such as I Know who Killed Me, Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever or Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li. They may considered badly executed ideas by many and there's a good chance that people considered them a bad idea beforehand too. The thing is if producers and/or executives think there's an audience out there for the idea, then they'll push for it. Often the wackiest ideas may work with a good mesh of crew, cast and vision. Often however we get crap like American Pyshco 2: All American Girl. The thing is, you cannot be sure until it's made.

Which brings us to Cowboys and Aliens, a film based on a comic book of the same name. Such a comic book sounds quite niche to a guy like me, however as so other film coming out appears to be connected to a comic book somehow, you can see where the exec suits were going with things. Add to the fact that you've got the western genre; a classic american genre and aliens (who seem to be cropping up everywhere at the moment) and I'm sure that the studio heads felt they had something special up their sleeves. The film hasn't set the box office alight as much as I feel the film makers would have liked, but it hasn't been a total failure. With this said however, after reading Mark Kermode's embittered article about modern movies I have started to ask myself when was the last time you felt a film really, truly flop?

So I guess I have to start talking about the film itself then don't I? And I'll start by stating the obvious, in that the film doesn't skimp on it's promise of Cowboys and Aliens. They all present and accounted for, hell there's even some Native Indians thrown in for good measure, the trouble is all these guys are piled together in a narrative that doesn't have the legs to make things work and are given set pieces that while pretty enough, seem to lack that punch and crunch that would make them stand out. The film is relatively fun at points but so unremarkable that I had to bore you with those over-long paragraphs above this one while I try and remember what happened in the film.

A lot of my issues with the film lie with the plot itself, in that I had no problem with the western aspect and would love more of it (seriously the idea of Ford and Craig in a straight western would have me drooling) but the sci-fi element feels clunky and shoehorned. Characters and information drop in and out at convenient moments and none of it feels organic. At one point a reveal is given that feels so frustratingly wedged in it's beyond annoying, particularly as a character has waited for such a ridiculous amount of time before mentioning the matter. Silly things happen in movies like this all the time (Think Independence Day = Apple Mac Virus) however if the momentums carries you and the action hits the sweet spots then we often don't realise. I know for a fact I don't. Despite what my reviews read, I don't consciously go looking for flaws. But if they're willing jump at you then clearly the film isn't doing it's job. The problem is that Cowboys and Aliens is only sometimes effective. Jon Favreau is not doing his best work here and it shows. It says a lot when I'm watching the competent yet vanilla set pieces of the film and thinking to myself how much more fun Rango* was than this.

The idea that the humans within the movie are severely underwhelmed  in terms of fire-power (save one element), never really comes into play. In fact it never feels like these characters are in any particular danger or worry. They have a goal and it all feels quite achievable. But then again considering the amount of cliché lines the film manages to turf out, I shouldn't be surprised at the lack of...well surprise.

So we thank the stars for the stars, in that Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford are damn good at what they do, delivering presence. Both have the right amount of gravel in their faces to be believable cinematic cowboys. Ford's tetchy, guff and 12a rated racist Dolarhyde hits the mark consistently. Craig's stoic man with no name character mixes the characters volatile past with the quiet and intense and brooding nature that works. The less said about Olivia Wilde however, the better. An attractive actress, Wilde hasn't made a mark on me acting wise in any real way. In earlier films, this can be argued that they were just smaller roles. Now in films like Tron: Legacy and this she seems to be picking characters that are just boring in general and do nothing to stretch the talents she may hold. I really don't blame her, as some of the material in the larger films will get you noticed but unfortunately for some (especially for a few unfortunate Hollywood females) they may not doing anything for their craft.

But then again speaking of material, we're dealing with a film that has been handled by five different screenwriters. When the ratio gets that high, many often get weary. You can see why, with so many cooks looking to add elements to the broth, it's probably best just to play things safe.


*I watched Rango earlier this year but didn't blog it as I don't really review "kids" films. The thing is, Rango actually has more going on than a few of the blockbusters this year. I should have reviewed it.

Review: Hobo with a shotgun

Year: 2011
Director: Jason Eisener
Screenplay: John Davies, Jason Eisener
Starring: Rutger Hauer

Synopsis is here (as if the film needs it)

Hobo with a shotgun delivers what it says it delivers. To knock the film technically is almost silly and there will be many out there who have not seen any kind of exploitation feature asking themselves; "what kind of screw loose would even try to enjoy a film like this". To them I will say "hey at least it's short."

I liked Hobo for what it was; extremely OTT nonsense, it's shot with knowledge of those gritty shlock features and yet still has a certain amount of flair in the cinematography that defies some of the films it's paying homage to. It isn't a deconstruction like Deathproof, nor is it following the genre as close to the bone as Planet terror, but there's something about it's cartoony madness that works well enough to be although you may want to wash the nihilism of you.

I think one of the main reasons that I like the film is that it almost plays out like an antithesis to films like Harry Brown, a film which celebrates the idea of vigilantism as completely fine and worthy idea. Hobo, like a florescent Taxi Driver depicts the whole situation as the horrid and vile mess it actually is. Nobody gets away clean no matter what your intentions are. I won't lie however by saying my viewing of this reminded me of the films of one Michael Haneke. And yet despite my love for his essays on the west glorifying violence (something many could say this film does at times) the films lead character, his dreams and the outcome still managed to sway me not only as entertaining (the violence is SO out there one can't take seriously) but strangely affecting due to what happens. I won't lie, I knew where the film was going and yet when it reached it's destination I wasn't as disappointed as i would be with many other more mainstream affair. Mostly because it's outcome comes off more as a trope than lazy writing.

That aside I liked the nuttiness of it all; the silly dialogue, the over the top sleaze used to portray the despicable of it all, the wonderfully garish colour scheme that felt right at home with the material and of course, Rutgar Huaers ability to hold a viewers attention with his presence.

I wlll say however, for a film that healthy acknowledges that it's an exploitation flick and is made now in the 21 century, why is it that Hobo with a shotgun couldn't have made it's female lead a stronger one? I'm not looking for role models but Molly Dunsworth's Abby starts off as a streetwise prostitute before decending very quickly into a screaming damsel in distress who can't seem to function with her Hobo hero. Considering that some of the most well known exploitations have very strong female characters (Day of the woman/I spit on your grave, nearly anything Pam Grier was in in the 70's, slasher movies in general) you get the feeling the film missed a trick.

But then again, has it? It's called Hobo with a shotgun, and has a Hobo with a shotgun. He puts it to great use. This isn't the sort of film that gives you a title with a metaphor or has any alterer motive. It does what it says it does. If your arguing about it, you really should have paid closer attention to the title.