Year: 2011 (U.K Release 2012)
Director: Bobcat Goldthwait
Screenplay: Bobcat Goldthwait
Starring: Joel Murray, Tara Lynne Barr and Mackenzie Brooke Smith.
Synopsis is here
Former stand up comedian; Bobcat Goldthwait's satire is a simple one. The targets are as plain as the nose on it's face. This is not a problem for me. I enjoyed many of the barbs the film hurls, as most of the time the film ranges from moderately to highly funny. Goldthwait's jabs at loosely based parodies of neo-con political commentators, American Idol and trashy reality shows are warmly welcomed. In fact the main conceit, in which a man goes postal due to the ugly cynicism being fed to him (and everyone else) by media outlets and the like, is the sort of wish-fulfilment fantasy that must be gaining more patrons by the day. Goldthwait tries to up the stakes by giving us a central relationship, that is given the same type of troublesome affection, usually reserved of the likes of Todd Solondz. Once again no real issue here.
However, much like Goldthwait's previous feature World's Greatest Dad (2009), God Bless America is quite the one note affair, and unlike it's predecessor, is a little too scatter shot to remain truly remarkable. The anger seems to be there. Goldthwait's film gives us a very strong motif that follows us throughout the film.Diana Ross' Theme from Mahogany is heard throughout, being poorly sung by an X-factor wannabe laying out the intent as clear as day. Is this quagmire of lowest common denominator pap, where we wish to be lead? Living as products of fear with only the antics of fame hungry nitwits to make us feel better about ourselves?
Goldthwait sets the path out quickly and assuredly, the parodies and idleness of the masses are right on the money at the start. The ironic moment in which our protagonist; Frank (a neatly sad sacked Joel Murray), is fired for an extremely decent gesture, amidst a crowd of wage salves guffawing over the last nights sneering T.V show hits home with a wit that's sand paper dry. The absurdity feels far too plausible.
For a while it doesn't let up. A PG rated Sweet sixteen style show, in which, the birthday girl is screeching swear words at her parents for getting the wrong car, is layered on by Frank's own daughter mimicking the same bratty attitude over the phone. When Goldthwait gets it right, he gets it right.
That is until the movie hits the road, and the cold blooded killing starts. Where the energy should rise, it falls. Slowing for characters spout dialogue that feels more like a stand up comedian's rantings than something that comes out naturally. It's not that I don't agree some some of the points, it's more that it sits awkwardly within the film. Goldthwait moves more towards the central relationship between the middle aged Frank and the teenage Roxy. The sweetness between the wannabe Bonnie and Clyde doubles, but the focus lessens the easy targets become quite thinly spread and the film slowly loses it's bite.
Any real complexity stems from the character of Roxy (an energetic Tara Lynne Barr) whose reasons for joining Frank give the film a shot in the arm late on, when we find out that Goldthwait has nowhere else to direct the rage. Television is one of the villains. Not just in the film but outside too as the antics of Charlie Brooker's Dead Set (2008) and Black Mirror (2012), are far more focused affairs that are just as black but far more rewarding. Goldthwait should however get full marks for his efforts. Barr donning an imagery that evokes Brenda Ann Spencer, and the films all out final moments provide more interesting hints of Goldthwaits outlook and anger. Such venom however, still needs discipline to be truly affective.
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Cinematic Dramatic 4x07 - Killer Joe
Woah there buddy, you might want to put the chicken down. Boulton and Byron have seen Killer Joe and it's finger-licking good....but not in that way. Also, Spider-Man's amazing return is reviewed without the glitter.
via GeekPlanetOnline: Cinematic Dramatic http://www.geekplanetonline.com/hosting/originals/dramatic/?p=episode&name=2012-07-17_cinematic_dramatic_4x07__killer_joe.mp3
Monday, 16 July 2012
Review: The Amazing Spiderman
Year: 2012
Director: Marc Webb
Screenplay: James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, Steve Kloves
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Rhys Ifans, Sally Field
Synopsis is here, but also here, with parts here also.
A friends Facebook status gave the kind of sharp review of The Amazing Spiderman that most people respond to these days. In a world where 140 characters seemly affect people in a more direct way than essays and articles, labelling the film as "utter gash" will obtain way more response than whatever dross I vomit up in this blog.
While I don't fully agree with his analysis, I know that the next time we sink some tins of tyskie, I do feel we'll both agree that The Amazing Spiderman is as unnecessary as the 3D glasses I had to take to the cinema to wear. It's bad enough that that once again, 3D does little to prove its worth for a tent pole release. But the fact that the film that the effect is attached to can't make up its mind on whether it's an actual reboot or otherwise, provides a certain amount of disenchantment.
The Amazing Spiderman really does feel like a product of a company clinging onto the franchise. Sony don't appear desperate (product placement aside). However, the films needless demand to once again show us how Spiderman got to be, does little to change the fact that the film is a contrivance. The lack of ideas continue as without Sam Raimi (Script issues, unmoving release date), recycled bits of the original plans look like they've been slotted awkwardly into wherever fits. It also feels like they've spent too much time wondering what Warner Brothers were doing with DC material.
In hiring Marc Webb, we've been given 500 days of Spiderman Begins. A film which spends most of it's time targeting the high angst of the teen characters and mimicking the slightly grittier tone that The Dark Knight made its own. But while Christopher Nolan successfully crafted a comic book series that spliced its pulp roots the director's own obsessions, TAS comes to us a bit of a hodge podge. The film makes a bigger push of Peter Parker's powers as a metaphor for teen growing pains. But all the images of a hooded brooding Parker acting all Nirvana, reminded me of the reason I enjoyed Raimi's films in the first place. In fact it's something that Joss Wheedon's Avengers remembered; it's ok to have fun with these heroes.
The problem is that The Amazing Spiderman spends just so much time navel gazing, that I lost what I found so engaging from before. Raimi's Spidermans were board and a little bit silly, but they didn't feel like they had to hide that. In fact, they fully embraced it, reminding me of the 90's cartoon series that I grew up with. There was just more vibrancy originally.
This isn't to say Webb's film is a travesty. I'm sure TAS, has its fans who read more comics than me who can honestly say it's closer to the version they expected the first time around. Webb brings some interesting visuals to the table, and while the performances don't feel as earnest as those that have come before it, they're certainly stronger in other areas. The chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is charming, while placing Martin Sheen in the Uncle Ben role was a well played stroke. It's quite clear that Webb's strength is in the interactions of the actors.
Unfortunately, this doesn't stabilize the films awkward plotting and general poor usage of characters. Other than being the first love of Peter Parker, the film isn't sure of what to do with Gwen Stacy, while the plot thread involving Uncle Ben is dropped quicker than a hot potato. Why reboot this aspect, if Peter isn't going to be that bothered with it soon afterwards? Elsewhere, Rhys Ifans tries to update Brundlefly for the twilight generation, but unfortunately is given a villain that lacks the creepiness of Willem Defoe's Green Goblin or the pathos of Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus. Much like the film's action set pieces, Ifans' villain struggles to escape the shadow that Raimi has cast.
Still, I say this while the film made a killing at the box office (although knocked off the top spot in the U.K by Ice Age 4 as of posting this). This only helps the film disprove the idea that people desperately want original films. But in counting the amount the Xperia phone shots that hang from this tent pole. It seems to me that Sony's belief that branding is best in this cinematic world is correct when the numbers are that good. Money talks.
Director: Marc Webb
Screenplay: James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, Steve Kloves
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Rhys Ifans, Sally Field
Synopsis is here, but also here, with parts here also.
A friends Facebook status gave the kind of sharp review of The Amazing Spiderman that most people respond to these days. In a world where 140 characters seemly affect people in a more direct way than essays and articles, labelling the film as "utter gash" will obtain way more response than whatever dross I vomit up in this blog.
While I don't fully agree with his analysis, I know that the next time we sink some tins of tyskie, I do feel we'll both agree that The Amazing Spiderman is as unnecessary as the 3D glasses I had to take to the cinema to wear. It's bad enough that that once again, 3D does little to prove its worth for a tent pole release. But the fact that the film that the effect is attached to can't make up its mind on whether it's an actual reboot or otherwise, provides a certain amount of disenchantment.
The Amazing Spiderman really does feel like a product of a company clinging onto the franchise. Sony don't appear desperate (product placement aside). However, the films needless demand to once again show us how Spiderman got to be, does little to change the fact that the film is a contrivance. The lack of ideas continue as without Sam Raimi (Script issues, unmoving release date), recycled bits of the original plans look like they've been slotted awkwardly into wherever fits. It also feels like they've spent too much time wondering what Warner Brothers were doing with DC material.
In hiring Marc Webb, we've been given 500 days of Spiderman Begins. A film which spends most of it's time targeting the high angst of the teen characters and mimicking the slightly grittier tone that The Dark Knight made its own. But while Christopher Nolan successfully crafted a comic book series that spliced its pulp roots the director's own obsessions, TAS comes to us a bit of a hodge podge. The film makes a bigger push of Peter Parker's powers as a metaphor for teen growing pains. But all the images of a hooded brooding Parker acting all Nirvana, reminded me of the reason I enjoyed Raimi's films in the first place. In fact it's something that Joss Wheedon's Avengers remembered; it's ok to have fun with these heroes.
The problem is that The Amazing Spiderman spends just so much time navel gazing, that I lost what I found so engaging from before. Raimi's Spidermans were board and a little bit silly, but they didn't feel like they had to hide that. In fact, they fully embraced it, reminding me of the 90's cartoon series that I grew up with. There was just more vibrancy originally.
This isn't to say Webb's film is a travesty. I'm sure TAS, has its fans who read more comics than me who can honestly say it's closer to the version they expected the first time around. Webb brings some interesting visuals to the table, and while the performances don't feel as earnest as those that have come before it, they're certainly stronger in other areas. The chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is charming, while placing Martin Sheen in the Uncle Ben role was a well played stroke. It's quite clear that Webb's strength is in the interactions of the actors.
Unfortunately, this doesn't stabilize the films awkward plotting and general poor usage of characters. Other than being the first love of Peter Parker, the film isn't sure of what to do with Gwen Stacy, while the plot thread involving Uncle Ben is dropped quicker than a hot potato. Why reboot this aspect, if Peter isn't going to be that bothered with it soon afterwards? Elsewhere, Rhys Ifans tries to update Brundlefly for the twilight generation, but unfortunately is given a villain that lacks the creepiness of Willem Defoe's Green Goblin or the pathos of Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus. Much like the film's action set pieces, Ifans' villain struggles to escape the shadow that Raimi has cast.
Still, I say this while the film made a killing at the box office (although knocked off the top spot in the U.K by Ice Age 4 as of posting this). This only helps the film disprove the idea that people desperately want original films. But in counting the amount the Xperia phone shots that hang from this tent pole. It seems to me that Sony's belief that branding is best in this cinematic world is correct when the numbers are that good. Money talks.
Review: Killer Joe
Year: 2011 (U.K Release 2012)
Director: William Friedkin
Screenplay: Tracy Letts
Starring: Emile Hirsch, Gina Gershon, Thomas Haden Church, Juno Temple, Matthew McConaughey
Synopsis is here
This twisted southern gothic noir, feels like Friedkin and writer Tracey Letts tore chunks from. Double Indemnity (1944) and flung them in boiling hot trans fats. It’s a devilishly amoral tale which is not for audiences who desire a hero to root for.
Considering the landscape of American cinema has mostly been filled adaptations of populist books and comic books, it does surprise when something like this comes along these days. Letts appears to be no Syd Field convert and Friedkin, clearly doesn't care that it's 2012, making a film that has the feel of a director who made films in the 70s. After so many origin stories of ever good superheroes, this upsets the balance like a stone in the foot. At first, it is hard to get into the rhythms. The jump cuts, the offbeat marks of the actors; it's all a little disorientating at first.
But then what do you expect when we're a film that is so combative from the off? Beginning in a thunderous storm we are introduced to the films catalyst, Chris (Hirsch), by a barking dog. We've seen movies like this, when the dog barks, there's trouble afoot. The animals always seem to read the situation best. Having such an aggressive animal intro this character, not only signals that there's trouble a comin' but also supplies an echo back to the fighting dogs from Friedkin’s seminal horror film The Exorcist (1973). Interestingly enough, both The Exorcist and Killer Joe have desperate families looking to an enigmatic stranger to expel evil. The difference here is that everyone in Killer Joe has morals of the Edinburgh toilet in Trainspotting (1996).
The opening gambit is one used down many a noir, Chris has debts and believes that killing his abhorrent (yet mostly unseen) mother for her insurance payout is the right way to go. He manages to rope his dopey father (Church) in to help with proceedings, for no real reason other than they are no longer a couple. They hire Joe Cooper; a detective who’s a hitman on the side, to get the deed done. And the payment? $25,000 when the check clears with Chris' "uncomplicated" sister as a retainer. The moment we meet Dottie (Temple), dressed in virginal white, we can see where things are heading.
Killer Joe plays in the same realm as Herzog's Bad Lieutenant (2009). A sun baked fever dream of dirty dealings and dubious morals. Innocence is a word in the dictionary, if your indebted to loan sharks, you better hope the cops don't like the creditors better. Friedkin has captured a shit of the shoe pocket of existence that lends itself to the likes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) or even Rob Zombies Halloween (2007). These characters glare at each other with wide eyes and contempt, scrabbling over each other in order to survive. Friedkin captures this energy with the same zeal he had with his earlier films. Here however, he knows the distance we need to keep from these people. He finds the absurd humour that languishes between the lines. At one point, Chris' creditors catch up with him and they enjoy a conversation that one would hold with close friends before the inevitable beat down. The cinematography by Caleb Deschanel captures the contempt and aggression that simmer between the characters. The gaudy blue beams of a strip club, desolate roadside crosses, dry heat sizzle of the day and the thunderstorm nights combine and paint a picture of a town that Texas forgot.
Within all this is an actor who is truly in his element. Matthew McConaughey is truly at his best with this performance. The man appears to be having a purple patch (See The Lincoln Laywer) and all credit is due to him. Joe Cooper is a character with a searing intensity I would never have expected from a leading man who has spent much of the last decade leaning on rom-com posters. Here is a chilling role that taps into the same darkness that was seen in Frailty (2002). Unpredictability looms over every scene he features. We dread every slow step he takes. Meanwhile, I've nearly made up my mind on how I feel about Hirsch as one again I've seen him in a movie in which he appears out of step with everybody else. His exchanges feel stilted (both him and the limited locations remind us that the material was originally a play) but he doesn't fully frustrate. Church and Gershon on the ther hand, are perfect. While Temple is the film’s ying to Joe’s yang, playing the role with enough sympathy for us to feel the risk. "Your eyes hurt" she exclaims to Joe, and we can see why. She is a white trash angel. One who is completely untouched. Joe's seedy, unflinching gaze does nothing but disturb. Is he grooming her to harm her, or is he really infatuated? The balance is struck so fine, it's impossible to detect.
What is detectable is some of the gender politics at play. The often mention fried chicken sequence is one of humiliation that may cause many to bulk. While Joe’s interactions with Dottie are very uncomfortable. A million readers may be tantalised by one Christian Grey but I doubt they'll look at the domination in Killer Joe with the same doe eyes.
Friedkin states that he films are about the thin line between good and evil. It's the same here, although the lines are much more blurred. Much like the little seen Bug (2006), the uneasy energy crackles in the atmosphere. The surroundings are claustrophobic and the people are gasping for air. Despite being so far away and so long ago, Friedkin's direction once again places us in that small bedroom in Washington. As a film maker, one can say he's never really left. I will say that there is something in Tracey Letts work that once again brings out the nasty in Friedkin. The world here feels like an extension of the fishbowl found in Bug. Characters seem to share the same psychosis, willing to fall for so much to keep their fever dreams alive. The films ending is aburpt and will frustrate, but consider it the end of one story and the beginning of another.
I do however, doubt you'll mind too much. Considering how much this film will you drag around in the sand anyway, you may be happy just to get the grit out of our eye.
Director: William Friedkin
Screenplay: Tracy Letts
Starring: Emile Hirsch, Gina Gershon, Thomas Haden Church, Juno Temple, Matthew McConaughey
Synopsis is here
This twisted southern gothic noir, feels like Friedkin and writer Tracey Letts tore chunks from. Double Indemnity (1944) and flung them in boiling hot trans fats. It’s a devilishly amoral tale which is not for audiences who desire a hero to root for.
Considering the landscape of American cinema has mostly been filled adaptations of populist books and comic books, it does surprise when something like this comes along these days. Letts appears to be no Syd Field convert and Friedkin, clearly doesn't care that it's 2012, making a film that has the feel of a director who made films in the 70s. After so many origin stories of ever good superheroes, this upsets the balance like a stone in the foot. At first, it is hard to get into the rhythms. The jump cuts, the offbeat marks of the actors; it's all a little disorientating at first.
But then what do you expect when we're a film that is so combative from the off? Beginning in a thunderous storm we are introduced to the films catalyst, Chris (Hirsch), by a barking dog. We've seen movies like this, when the dog barks, there's trouble afoot. The animals always seem to read the situation best. Having such an aggressive animal intro this character, not only signals that there's trouble a comin' but also supplies an echo back to the fighting dogs from Friedkin’s seminal horror film The Exorcist (1973). Interestingly enough, both The Exorcist and Killer Joe have desperate families looking to an enigmatic stranger to expel evil. The difference here is that everyone in Killer Joe has morals of the Edinburgh toilet in Trainspotting (1996).
The opening gambit is one used down many a noir, Chris has debts and believes that killing his abhorrent (yet mostly unseen) mother for her insurance payout is the right way to go. He manages to rope his dopey father (Church) in to help with proceedings, for no real reason other than they are no longer a couple. They hire Joe Cooper; a detective who’s a hitman on the side, to get the deed done. And the payment? $25,000 when the check clears with Chris' "uncomplicated" sister as a retainer. The moment we meet Dottie (Temple), dressed in virginal white, we can see where things are heading.
Killer Joe plays in the same realm as Herzog's Bad Lieutenant (2009). A sun baked fever dream of dirty dealings and dubious morals. Innocence is a word in the dictionary, if your indebted to loan sharks, you better hope the cops don't like the creditors better. Friedkin has captured a shit of the shoe pocket of existence that lends itself to the likes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) or even Rob Zombies Halloween (2007). These characters glare at each other with wide eyes and contempt, scrabbling over each other in order to survive. Friedkin captures this energy with the same zeal he had with his earlier films. Here however, he knows the distance we need to keep from these people. He finds the absurd humour that languishes between the lines. At one point, Chris' creditors catch up with him and they enjoy a conversation that one would hold with close friends before the inevitable beat down. The cinematography by Caleb Deschanel captures the contempt and aggression that simmer between the characters. The gaudy blue beams of a strip club, desolate roadside crosses, dry heat sizzle of the day and the thunderstorm nights combine and paint a picture of a town that Texas forgot.
Within all this is an actor who is truly in his element. Matthew McConaughey is truly at his best with this performance. The man appears to be having a purple patch (See The Lincoln Laywer) and all credit is due to him. Joe Cooper is a character with a searing intensity I would never have expected from a leading man who has spent much of the last decade leaning on rom-com posters. Here is a chilling role that taps into the same darkness that was seen in Frailty (2002). Unpredictability looms over every scene he features. We dread every slow step he takes. Meanwhile, I've nearly made up my mind on how I feel about Hirsch as one again I've seen him in a movie in which he appears out of step with everybody else. His exchanges feel stilted (both him and the limited locations remind us that the material was originally a play) but he doesn't fully frustrate. Church and Gershon on the ther hand, are perfect. While Temple is the film’s ying to Joe’s yang, playing the role with enough sympathy for us to feel the risk. "Your eyes hurt" she exclaims to Joe, and we can see why. She is a white trash angel. One who is completely untouched. Joe's seedy, unflinching gaze does nothing but disturb. Is he grooming her to harm her, or is he really infatuated? The balance is struck so fine, it's impossible to detect.
What is detectable is some of the gender politics at play. The often mention fried chicken sequence is one of humiliation that may cause many to bulk. While Joe’s interactions with Dottie are very uncomfortable. A million readers may be tantalised by one Christian Grey but I doubt they'll look at the domination in Killer Joe with the same doe eyes.
Friedkin states that he films are about the thin line between good and evil. It's the same here, although the lines are much more blurred. Much like the little seen Bug (2006), the uneasy energy crackles in the atmosphere. The surroundings are claustrophobic and the people are gasping for air. Despite being so far away and so long ago, Friedkin's direction once again places us in that small bedroom in Washington. As a film maker, one can say he's never really left. I will say that there is something in Tracey Letts work that once again brings out the nasty in Friedkin. The world here feels like an extension of the fishbowl found in Bug. Characters seem to share the same psychosis, willing to fall for so much to keep their fever dreams alive. The films ending is aburpt and will frustrate, but consider it the end of one story and the beginning of another.
I do however, doubt you'll mind too much. Considering how much this film will you drag around in the sand anyway, you may be happy just to get the grit out of our eye.
Monday, 2 July 2012
Review: Storage 24
Year: 2012
Director: Johannes Roberts
Screenplay: Noel Clarke, Davie Fairbanks, Marc Small
Starring: Noel Clarke, Colin O'Donoghue and Antonia Campbell-Hughes
Synopsis is here:
Storage 24 is a MacDonald's meal of a movie, in which it won't be particularly nourishing to a cinephiles palette, but at a stretch, it fills a hole. There's no need for bush beating here. The film is not original and wears, its love of Alien/Aliens on it's sleeve. It would have been nice for the film to have as much invention as Attack the Block, as it would have been great if its Roberts took full advantage of it's setting. However, I didn't have any animosity to Storage 24 as other website reviewers have had. Possibly because I'm the red headed stepchild of this blogging game.
Clarke himself has stated on the Kermode and Mayo wittertainment podcast that he had his own reservations and concerns on the opening segments of Joe Cornish's ghetto sci-fi feature and with fair point. The opening gambit of AtB wishes for a leap of faith that some may not be willing to take. We meet those protagonists as willing participants of a mugging. Storage 24 has Clarke writing himself as a suited sad sack, whose just been dumped out of a long term relationship. It's easier to take, and Clarke placement of himself in the lead role strives to show a similar element of turning convention on it's head as Ridley Scott's seminal creature feature. Clarke's Charlie is not something we often see of Black British characters in such genre cinema. In comparison to Cornish's aggressive Block characters, one can see what Clarke is trying to do.
I kind of enjoyed this, along with many of the characters and their traits. I found enough conviction in them and their relationships to be invested in them. The film takes a mistake with a stock character, whose final quote doubles up as reference to Aliens, becomes their only worthwhile moment. Apart from this however, no one offends. Perhaps they should, as to perk the film up slightly. Every character follows the tropes as they should, which is fine, but also helps display why AtB polarised and appealed the way it did.
The film does suffer from Johannes Roberts' clumsy visual direction, hack and slash editing and Clarke's sometimes ill advised humour. The humour screws with the overall tone and is sometimes badly timed. It also doesn't help distract from Roberts wish to shoot nearly all the film in awkward extreme close up. It's clear that the production value isn't too high but it seems that Roberts couldn't find enough ways around gaining atmosphere other than short focused face shots. It's a clear attempt to create a claustrophobic atmosphere, but the film itself doesn't gains a proper geography. The storage centre never becomes the labyrinthine entrapment it could be, merely becoming a one or two dusty rooms and a basement. You get the feeling that more could be done.
However, as a low budget B movie, the film more or less delivers. Cheap CGI aside, I enjoyed the creature design and its mostly scant appearances. I didn't mind the practical effects either. Clarke is a little too charming for his misery guts character and yet his charisma does pulls us through the film. That Clarke has managed to work with Universal and get this produced says more about the film than the film itself. As flawed as Storage 24 is, Clarke's involvement reminds us of his intent.
Director: Johannes Roberts
Screenplay: Noel Clarke, Davie Fairbanks, Marc Small
Starring: Noel Clarke, Colin O'Donoghue and Antonia Campbell-Hughes
Synopsis is here:
Storage 24 is a MacDonald's meal of a movie, in which it won't be particularly nourishing to a cinephiles palette, but at a stretch, it fills a hole. There's no need for bush beating here. The film is not original and wears, its love of Alien/Aliens on it's sleeve. It would have been nice for the film to have as much invention as Attack the Block, as it would have been great if its Roberts took full advantage of it's setting. However, I didn't have any animosity to Storage 24 as other website reviewers have had. Possibly because I'm the red headed stepchild of this blogging game.
Clarke himself has stated on the Kermode and Mayo wittertainment podcast that he had his own reservations and concerns on the opening segments of Joe Cornish's ghetto sci-fi feature and with fair point. The opening gambit of AtB wishes for a leap of faith that some may not be willing to take. We meet those protagonists as willing participants of a mugging. Storage 24 has Clarke writing himself as a suited sad sack, whose just been dumped out of a long term relationship. It's easier to take, and Clarke placement of himself in the lead role strives to show a similar element of turning convention on it's head as Ridley Scott's seminal creature feature. Clarke's Charlie is not something we often see of Black British characters in such genre cinema. In comparison to Cornish's aggressive Block characters, one can see what Clarke is trying to do.
I kind of enjoyed this, along with many of the characters and their traits. I found enough conviction in them and their relationships to be invested in them. The film takes a mistake with a stock character, whose final quote doubles up as reference to Aliens, becomes their only worthwhile moment. Apart from this however, no one offends. Perhaps they should, as to perk the film up slightly. Every character follows the tropes as they should, which is fine, but also helps display why AtB polarised and appealed the way it did.
The film does suffer from Johannes Roberts' clumsy visual direction, hack and slash editing and Clarke's sometimes ill advised humour. The humour screws with the overall tone and is sometimes badly timed. It also doesn't help distract from Roberts wish to shoot nearly all the film in awkward extreme close up. It's clear that the production value isn't too high but it seems that Roberts couldn't find enough ways around gaining atmosphere other than short focused face shots. It's a clear attempt to create a claustrophobic atmosphere, but the film itself doesn't gains a proper geography. The storage centre never becomes the labyrinthine entrapment it could be, merely becoming a one or two dusty rooms and a basement. You get the feeling that more could be done.
However, as a low budget B movie, the film more or less delivers. Cheap CGI aside, I enjoyed the creature design and its mostly scant appearances. I didn't mind the practical effects either. Clarke is a little too charming for his misery guts character and yet his charisma does pulls us through the film. That Clarke has managed to work with Universal and get this produced says more about the film than the film itself. As flawed as Storage 24 is, Clarke's involvement reminds us of his intent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)