Search This Blog

Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts

Friday, 1 June 2012

An Official Apology


I said something in my discussion of Les Miserables (2012) that I deeply regret. No, I'm not referring to the fact that I would cast Roger Allam over the far superior singer Philip Quast, because I still maintain that Allam would be right for the part (though, you know, if they were going to insist on casting an Australian...). Nor am I referring to the fact I stated Lea Salonga was an inferior Eponine to Frances Ruffelle. Am I not referring, either, to the fact that I made a rather cruel fat joke about Adele without any provocation whatsoever. I'm not even referring to the fact that I suggest they make a movie about moot with Nick Jonas playing W.T. Snacks. No, the thing I regret saying is far, far more serious, and I only hope I can be forgiven.


In my review, I referred to Samantha Barks as "Kinda hot, in a British way". How stupid do I look after seeing the half-second clip of her in the teaser Trailer for the film that was released today?





We've had a few hot British girls who have done the rounds as the objects of male fantasies worldwide, from Kiera Knightly to Emma Watson to Carey Mulligan, and I'm officially calling it now: Samantha Barks is next. The girl is absolutely gorgeous. Now I'm torn between which member of the Les Mis cast I'd have sex with if given the choice - because I might actually be tempted to pick Ms Barks over Hadley Fraser...

I think I'd shag Hadley, marry Sam, and go on the Cruise with Ramin... And yes, I am aware the whole point of that game is that someone else picks the people in question, but fuck you, because that someone is Cameron Mackintosh.



Of course, maybe she's not that attractive and it's all down to the fact that I haven't fapped in 37 days now (don't ask) and find every moderately pretty woman obscenely attractive - but I doubt it. After all, I didn't start drooling at the sight of her American co-stars (which is especially odd, since I always used to find Anne Hathaway attractive when she was younger. Maybe my subconscious is making her appear ugly so when she helps destroy the batman franchise I won't mind so much? Not that Nolan needs much help, mind you, given his obsession with bad twist endings...). But whatever the reason, it's irrelevant. This scene is going to be even better than the rainy scene in Spiderman, and I'm actually planning on catching the movie now solely because of this. Oh, and the fact that I'll get to hear Hadley Fraser's sexy voice as the National Guard...


I'm sure he's already regretting putting his personal email address on his website... and, you know, publishing exactly where he's going to be every weeknight until June 16th...



On another note, I should probably apologize for suggesting in my Blade Runner blog post that Zhora was the Pleasure Model of replicant, when in fact it was Pris that was the Pleasure Model. Thank you to "Anonymous" for pointing this out to me - I guess I need to watch the fucking movie again.

Monday, 2 April 2012

Dead Silence Review

It's just a bizarre coincidence, but for some reason I've found myself watching and reviewing a horror movie on the exact same night this year as I did last. It must just be some psychological thing that whilst everyone else is spending April 1st playing jokes on each other, I'm hiding in my garage watching movies which scare the absolute shit out of me. And Dead Silence certainly succeeded in this department.



I think this movie was written as a counter-argument to those who say the Saw movies are just "torture porn", and not real horror. I've got no proof of this, but I get the feeling from watching it that the producers finally had enough of hearing people say they couldn't make a proper horror movie, and decided to show them just how good of a horror film they could make.

You know a movie's scary when you've seen the banner image for my Blog but will still rather hide behind a pillow than look at the screen...


This movie is filled with horror cliches, the sort of stereotypical things that come to your mind when you think "horror movie" - creepy dummies which appear to look at people, disembodied voices, a freaky as fuck soundtrack. Hell, they even included a clown at one point. This movie is, in essence, a walking talking horror cliche. And yet, this makes it a perfect example of what the horror genre can achieve.

No.


The plot of the film is simple enough, our protagonist, Jamie Ashen, has his wife murdered brutally soon after a package containing a ventriloquist's dummy is delivered to their apartment, and as he returns to their home town to bury her, he starts to investigate the myth of Mary Shaw, a ghost whom the townspeople have a poem about: "Beware the stare of Mary Shaw. She had no children only dolls. And if you see her in your dreams, do not ever, ever scream.". Naturally, with the mysterious delivery of one of Shaw's dolls to his apartment right before his wife's murder, Ashen decides to investigate whether this ghost really was responsible for her killing, and also intends to unearth why.


He can also unearth why the Secretary of State is in a wheelchair whilst he's at it.


From a technical standpoint, this movie is incredible, but again from a cliched perspective. The colours are muted, or given a blue hue throughout, except for the few colours the director really wants you to pay attention to - the yellow taxi Ashen pulls up in, the red of his car, and the red motel sign shining through his window. A lot of the shock moments come from things being seen in mirrors, or in your peripheral, and the makers clearly had a lot of fun with lighting their "jump moments". The way the shots transitioned as well, moving out through someone's eye from one scene to another, or watching a map as it turned into the actual landscape and we see a car driving down the road, were great transitions, and of course, remarkably similar to the style they perfected in Saw, albeit at a much slower pace to fit the tone of the film better.


No, that's clearly "built". "tone" just implies low bodyfat.


Perhaps the most impressive technical aspect to this film has to be the use of background noise throughout the film. As we all know, Foley sounds are added to movies on top of the noise recorded by the microphones, because this is the only way to make things sound completely natural, and give a movie a realistic feel. To quote wikipedia, "Without these crucial background noises, movies feel unnaturally quiet and uncomfortable." - and this fact was clearly not overlooked by the makers of Dead Silence, who muted all foley sounds whenever a scare moment was approaching, to create a sense of unease, and make the audience dread what was coming next. Some may argue that this is just a cheap and pathetic trick, telling people when to be scared, in the same way as a sharp, stabbing, high pitched note on a jump moment would be considered to be. Though I felt that this worked perfectly in creating suspense, and would liken it more to the eerie background screeching of "The Shining" more than the "in your face" jump cues. Hell, in a sense, because it is the lack of noise which is designed to disturb, perhaps Dead Silence is more comparable to Irreversible than any classic horror film, as the soundtrack of that movie was designed to go largely unnoticed, yet was set at such a pitch and frequency so as to make people feel uncomfortable and even nauseous.


It's so hard to masturbate whislt you're throwin up as well...


So, now that I've explained where the title comes from, let's get on with discussing some of the other aspects of the film, shall we?



The acting is fairly decent throughout, for a horror movie. With an estimated budget of $20 million, this wasn't exactly a blokbuster they were making, and yet all the cast turn out decent performances, even the kids. There was not one moment in this film where I felt that someone was over/under acting, bringing me out the movie. Of course, Donnie Wahlberg's entire part was essentially over-acted, as he was the comic relief of the piece. However, he was a real treat to see on screen, and certainly made the entire film more enjoyable. This may be his worst performance as a character named Lipton, but he was still great, and the character was fantastic as well.





The make-up effects used in this film were terrifying as well, especially when combined with the shock lighting and general atmosphere. And hell, seeing a witchwoman with a dolls face is fucking terrifying no matter how you cut it!


READ THIS ALT TEXT AND YOU SHALL DIE IN 7 DAYS!!!
Ok, so it doesn't even need a doll's face to be terrifying.



The music for this film is also great, with the producers getting their old friend Charles Clouser back again, although this time writing a proper score, rather than ripping off the keyboard part from a Rammstein song.



Don't act like you can't hear the similarities....




Of course, this makes the soundtrack less memorable (hell, you really remember the silence more than anything else. Hence the title, I guess), but it does make it a little more fitting, just as how the soundtrack to The Thing was very understated (and nominated for a Razzie - because what the fuck do they know about decent scores?)



All in all then, this was a fantastic horror movie, and a real frightfest - you can tell it was good because after I had watched it and was walking to my computer, my dog let out a heavy sigh and I nearly jumped out of my skin in terror. Then again, I couldn't play Manhunt with the lights out, so I'm evidently easier to scare than most. Still, it was great to see the Saw guys make a "proper" horror film, and do such a damn fine job of it. Of course [spoiler], they still kept the obligatory twist ending that they have at the end of all their films, but I was rather impressed with this one, because it was so far removed from what I was expecting, I imagine I got the same feeling watching this as the people who watched Saw before everyone started talking about it and giving away the plot must have gotten from that [/spoiler]




So, looking for another horror film for 2nd April? The Thing was certainly my top recommendation last year, and this year that recommendation goes to Dead Silence. Watch this movie.




Voice

Monday, 10 January 2011

Inglourious Basterds Review (Text)




Now, I’m fairly sure that absolutely everyone else who was ever going to see Inglourious Basterds has already seen it, therefore making a review slightly pointless. However, that’s never stopped me before, so I’m just going to write my thoughts on this movie, and see whether or not anyone agrees with me. Enjoy.

The first thing I would like to discuss is the title of this piece. The title of the movie was, of course, taken from the 70s film “Inglorious Bastards” (a.k.a “G.I. Bro” for all you Blaxploitation fans out there), and changed the second “a” in “Bastards” to an “e” for reasons unknown (and added an extra “u” to Inglorious, if my spelling ability isn’t completely fucked.


This is not a photoshop. This is genuinely the alternate poster and title for the original Inglorious Bastards.


This however, does not concern me. What I really want to know is why take the title from Inglorious bastards in the first place, even without the whole a/e thing? After all, Inglourious Basterds is clearly not a direct remake of Bastards, so why use the name? My guess would be that it was simply because QT thought the name sounded cool, and figured that since there isn’t a black soldier in the film he couldn’t get away with calling it “G.I. Bro”, so went for “Inglourious basterds” instead. However, despite the fact that the two stories are completely different for the most part, there is one similarity which none of the reviews I have read managed to pick up on (then again, I suspect I’m one of the only people in the world to have seen the original Inglorious Bastards before seeing QT’s version).

In the original film, the Bastards are a group of deserters heading for Switzerland who come across what appears to be a German platoon on their way to the Alpine border. The Bastards engage the enemy, and kill all of them, before discovering that they were an undercover American unit sent in to apprehend the German’s V-2 prototype by infiltrating the train it was set to be transported on. The Bastards feel it is their duty to fill in for he Americans they killed, but only have one German speaker in the group. Not only this, but one of their men is also Black, and a French resistance fighter points out that he won’t be able to go undercover as a German soldier. This one element of the story is closely mirrored in “Basterds”, when the three German speakers from the group are all killed, and Diane Kruger’s character points out to Brad Pitt that they will never be able to infiltrate the German film festival (this will sound odd if you haven’t seen the movie, but basically, there is a film festival all the Nazis are going to in Paris, and the basterds want to get in and blow them up) if none of them can speak or even look German. This is literally the only part of the original movie to appear in Tarantino’s movie, which seems odd given they share the same title. But, I guess if you wanted to watch Inglorious bastards, you may as well pick up the original, so I can see why QT didn’t just copy it.


Because, let's face it, this is gonna be hard to top...


Regarding Tarantino’s movie, however, the new plot is interesting enough. As mentioned above, it focuses on a plot by the Inglourious Basterds, a group of Jewish-American guerrilla fighters led by Brad Pitt, who intend to assassinate the Nazi leadership when they attend a film screening in Paris. The movie splits its time between the Basterds, and the characters of Shosanna Dreyfus, the French owner of the Paris cinema the Nazi screening is due to take place in, whose Jewish family was murdered by an SS Colonel at the start of the film, and Fredrick Zoller, a young German war hero who is desperate to woo Dreyfus, unaware of her past or heritage. Dropping in on both storylines, we also have Colonel Hans Lander, the SS officer who murdered Dreyfus’s family at the beginning of the film, who adds menace as the “Jew Hunter” tasked with bringing in the Basterds.


This guy... is un-fucking... believable.


Essentially, the entire film is made up of just a couple of scenes, put together to form the story. We change location 10 times at the very most over the course of the movie, and each of the five “chapters” is essentially made up of one small “set-up” scene, followed by a long “action” scene. Of course, this is very familiar Tarantino turf, being exactly the same as the structure he used in Reservoir Dogs, True Romance and Pulp Fiction, all of which were essentially just collections of cool scenes put together to make a film. But in Basterds this is even more exaggerated, to the extent that you feel the film really has been told in only 6 scenes. This is a really cool way of telling a story, because it allows a lot of tension to build in each scene, as there is no pressure to cut away to something else going on in a different location, so Tarantino is free to have 20 minutes build up to a pay off, and can really make the best use of his incredible dialogue-writing skills.


Never forget...


Although Tarantino himself lists the very first scene in the film as the best scene he has ever written, I would have to disagree with that statement. The scene in the basement of the Inn where the German speaking-members of the Basterds go undercover to meet their contact is one of the best scenes I have ever seen committed to film, and shows that Tarantino really does still have the magic that made Pulp and Dogs such memorable movies. In fact, I would say that this scene probably surpasses the infamous “Sicilian Scene” from True Romance as being the best scene Tarantino has ever written or shot, as it is just perfect. And the fact that he can keep that level of quality up for the half hour or so the scene runs for just shows the man’s pure mastery of cinema.

That said, however, there were a couple of directorial choices that I didn’t like in the film. The first of these was the title we got when first introduced to the character of Sergeant Stiglitz, and the cheesy voiceover we got when his past adventures were shown. It just felt way too cheesy for the film, and really didn’t fit the tone of the rest of the movie. It’s a though Tarantino still hasn’t got all his Grindhouse fanboy love out of his system, which is a real shame, given how good this movie is for the most part, and how realistic he keeps most of it. I suspect that he just couldn’t think of a good way to introduce Stiglitz’s backstory within the film without killing the pace or making it seem gratuitous so just figured “fuck it, if this thing’s gonna stick out, I’m gonna make sure it’s right in everyone’s face!”. The second cutaway scene like this with the explanation of why 35mm film was so flammable isn’t quite so annoying, probably because we had already had one cutaway explanatory scene by that point, but still killed the tone and pace a little, just as Stiglitz’s backstory did. However, I’m fairly sure Samuel L. Jackson did the voice over, so it was kind of cool just sitting there going Yep, that’s Sam Jackson all right.” (I just checked IMDB to make sure, and was surprised to see that the OSS officer we hear speaking to Brad Pitt near the end of the film was Harvey Keitel. How about that?).


No caption required. Oh wait...


I also felt that a couple of scenes of violence were a little gratuitous. Now, I don’t really mind violence – I mean, come on, I just admitted that one of my favourite film scenes is one which involves (Wait, sorry – SPOILER ALERT – probably best apply that from here on out, really) two guys getting their balls shot off, and a whole room full of people machinegunning each other – but a couple of bits just felt unnecessary. For example, the second time we see Brad Pitt carve a swastika into someone’s head, I felt like we didn’t really need to see it in such detail, because it worked well the first time when we didn’t actually see anything (just like the “ear scene” in Reservoir Dogs). I also didn’t like the scene when Eli Roth shoots a recently killed character in the face about 20 times as he lies on the floor. I mean, I can understand what its showing – it’s showing his hatred and anger at the guy for killing so many Jews, but I’m not entirely sure we needed to see a shot of his face as it was blown apart. We could have seen the first impact, then cut to Eli firing until his mag ran out. That way we would have understood what was happening, and understood what the character was feeling, but not been subjected to such unnecessary gore. I know that war is actually horrible and unpleasant to look at, but at the same time, that wasn’t really the point the movie was making (given how overly stylized and “cool” most of the violence is), so the shot just felt a bit over-the-top, as though it was only in there to spark controversy.


NOT that kind of controversy...


Other than that, though, I really didn’t have any problems with this film. I’ve heard people complain about how most of the film is in French and German, but while I did miss the end of a couple of subtitles, this really didn’t bother me for the most part. In fact, I quite liked the effect it gave, because I don’t see how some of the scenes could have been resolved were the entire film shot in English, as the language is pivotal to the plot in places (e.g. the Jews in the barn not speaking English, or the Germans in the bar).

What did really surprise me about this film, though, was the way that it doesn’t stick to factual events, but instead writes its own version of the war. Whilst this seems strange, setting a movie in history and ignoring historical facts (it almost seems disrespectful to the people who were actually there), this effect does keep the tension up, because it means that literally anything can happen. One of the reasons prequels tend to be worse than the original films (except for “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” and the prequel sections of “The Godfather part 2”) is because you already know exactly what will happen, so there is no real tension. With an altered history line, however, Tarantino is able to keep the tension going, as we are left unsure of whether or not the Basterds really will be able to kill the Nazi leadership and end the war. Plus, I suppose every historical story twists events to better suit the cinema anyway, so if they’re changing things in supposedly “true” stories, what harm does it do to make an entirely fictitious piece of work and set it in an actual historical event?





So, I loved the technical side of things, and the story and direction of the film, but what about the actors?

To be honest, I felt Brad Pitt was bad in this film. I felt he was a little too concerned with his accent, and not really that bothered by anything else. In the scenes where he is supposed to be playing an Italian, he is acting like he is Joe Black, and even in the other scenes, he seems as though he is just trying to play the whole thing for laughs. “Hey guys, listen to this stupid accent – isn’t this funny? I’ll get an Oscar for this!”. The other actors, however, are a different story.





For starters, I was very impressed by Eli Roth’s acting. He was overacting quite a bit in scenes, but for the most part seemed to pull of his character really well, which is pretty good for a guy who’s actually known as a director, rather than an actor. Hell, if his name wasn't in the credits or the posters, I'm certain I would have thought he was an actual actor, rather than a director. Till Schweiger is also really good, considering I had only seen him as Heinz Hummer in Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo before. This was possibly even more distracting than seeing Austin Powers playing a British General (though he was barely recognizable, and were his name not in the opening credits, I probably wouldn’t have known it was him).


He is pretty difficult to recognize, after all...


The real surprise of the bunch, however, is Diane Kruger, who I had previously only seen stumble through family movies like National Treasure and Troy. She seemed really bland in those films, and didn’t seem at all competent. And yet now I realize why – because she’s fucking German. Duh. When speaking her native tongue, or even speaking English but using her regular accent, Kruger nails the dialogue perfectly almost every time, and is perfect as German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark. I can see why she would have sucked in the movies when she was having to put on an American accent, of course; their accents make it hard enough to act even for us Brits – imagine how hard it must be to have that effect compounded on top of he fact that you’re not speaking your native language – but it’s still awesome to finally see her do a half-decent performance. I get the feeling she was previously only ever cast because she’s hot, so it’s cool to see her finally act, rather than just model in films. Although, actually, Tarantino does seem to have a foreign girl fetish (the Swiss chick in Pulp, the french chick in Kill Bill, also possibly Lucy Liu in Kill Bill, the Kiwi stuntwoman in Deathproof), so maybe he did cast her just because he fancied her?


I have no idea why German girls have such a bad rep in this country. They may actually be even hotter than French girls...


However, the best performance of the piece, of course, goes to Christoph Waltz, for his incredible performance as Colonel Heinz Hummer – sorry – Hans Landa. Fuck, now I’ve got Rob Schneider stuck in my head. Thanks a lot, Schweiger!


Yep, that's Till Schweiger, about to have his cock grabbed by 'Undercover Brother'. You're welcome.



Waltz won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his portrayal of Colonel Landa, so that pretty well tells you all you need to know about the performance. Waltz nails it, being the smartest, evilest, yet most charming villain we’ve had since Die Hard. He’s such a cool character that as we started to near the end of the film I was actively hoping he wouldn’t die, because he was so awesome. I genuinely felt that a character that smart deserved to survive the film, in spite of the fact that he had killed countless jews, and that’s a good indication of how well Waltz played his part – he turned one of the most unlikeable bastards ever into a character you were genuinely rooting for. Now that’s acting.

I really enjoyed his film, then, and would highly recommend it. The only other thing I want to know is – How come Eli Roth and Omar didn’t leg it out of the theatre once they’d shot all the guys in the opera box and planted the bomb? The weren’t locked in, as only the doors to the main seating area were locked, and they had done their job – so why not just run? Seemed a bit weird to me, but whatever – it was still a cool ending to an awesome movie. Well, actually, the very final scene after was even better, especially the closing line. But I shan't spoil it for you if you haven't already seen the film...





Rating:

****

4 Stars




I wouldn’t say it’s definitely better than Inglorious Bastards, but it is very different. This film contains some absolutely incredible scenes and performances, and is easily Tarantino’s best film since Pulp Fiction. It’s not flawless, but it is great fun, and you could definitely do a lot worse. This movie shows why Tarantino is considered one of the great directors of our time despite producing so few movies, and so few actually decent films out of those he does. Definitely worth a watch, and a great way to spend 2 and a half hours, as long as you’re not an American who can’t bear to watch something with subtitles.




Voice






Before I forget, today’s review was sponsored by Bin Laden photobombing Ed Miliband:








Apparently Eli Roth was dating Peaches Geldoff for a while. Here’s to hoping he punched Bob in the face!

Friday, 28 May 2010

Thoughts on Avatar (sort of possibly a review if you have a very loose definition of the word "review". More sort of rambling...) - Text.

Racism, Rape, Suicide.

3 of the funniest words in the English language – but why did Avatar make me think of these things? And why is it that, in a film in which (people tell me) the environmental message about why we should care for nature is the over-riding feature, were these 3 points the only ones that really stayed with me? Maybe they were the over-reaching features (Land Law joke. Don’t worry, it’s shit even if you do get it...), but I still want to know why they were so obvious to me, when no one else seems to have spotted them. Or, at least, not obsessed over them as the key points in the film as I have. Am I a sociopath? Probably. Is that the reason I noticed these things? Possibly. Have I set the record for the most questions in a single paragraph on this Blog? I’m not sure. What I can tell you is this: as a study of how the mind of a maniac works, this entry should be good reading. As a movie review... well...




The first thing I want to look at is the rape sequence, because this was so obvious to me on the screen that I can’t believe no-one else has brought it up! And before anyone says that I’m probably just reading way too much into the movie, and that this wasn’t some hidden subtext in there, I would like to point out that I watched “Get Carter” from start to finish without even realizing Carter’s “niece” is actually his daughter – so yeah, nowhere near being a film buff. This is why I was surprised that no-one else seems to have noticed or mentioned this scene, except the one guy who clicked “like” on my Facebook status relating to it.



Though to be fair, he could just as easily be liking that status because he’s a fan of Vin Diesel or getting graphically murdered with crowbars… First one’s more likely.


The scene I am referring to, of course, is the scene in which Sully tries to catch a dragon monster to fly on, and has to attach his weird hair extension thingy to the dragon, against it’s will. Now, whilst the smart-asses amongst you will point out that, under Section 1 of the Sexual offences Act 2003:

A person (A) commits [rape] if:
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

...and therefore Sully is not raping the dragon because he is not using his penis, I would like to point out that the weird thing on Sully’s head is used in reproduction (when he’s boning that Alien chick – more on that later), and if I had something that looks like that forcibly shoved in my arse, I would shout rape without concerning myself with semantics. Even if it isn’t rape, that certainly appears to be a serious sexual assault – and there is clearly no consent on the dragon’s part. What’s more – there is no way that Sully reasonably believes the dragon is consenting. The dragon quite clearly tries to fight Sully off, and even fly away, but he forces himself on the dragon, and shoves his thing in it’s receiving port. That’s “rape-rape”, even by Whoopie Goldberg’s standards! Or maybe not, given she doesn’t think anally penetrating 13 year olds without their consent is “rape-rape” (But bitching about the Polanski case is Sooooo last season!). I mean, the only way I could understand it is if the dragon had been dressed like a slut, and was sleeping with every dude at that party, and Sully had been kind of drunk at the time, and his mate Dan told him that she got off from pretending guys were raping her and would enjoy it. THEN I could understand it... Wait, scratch that. Don’t know where that came from...


Just kidding, people! This was actually from when I got arrested for not being able to do a basic Photoshop, and using Paint instead!


But as it stands, there is no way Sully thought that dragon was consenting. That makes it Dragon rape. Not cool, Sully. Regular rape will get you a beating in prison; child molesters get cut up, or even have their balls cut off. Imagine where a dragon raper lies on that scale! And yes, I know it’s “rapist”. And yes, I know I started the last 2 sentences with a preposition, but Fuck you - Grammar and Vocab ain't important, Bruv! After all, even Dappy got an A* in English...




The next point I wanted to discuss is the bestiality featured in the film that isn’t man-on-dragon action. In the story, Sully goes to this alien world, and takes control of a body that looks like one of the aliens, and then proceeds to bone Neytiri, one of the aliens, right?


At what point does that become weird?


I mean, I get she’s a humanoid, but she’s still 9 feet tall and Blue with cat eyes. Even a monkey’s closer to a human than the Na’vi are, and you wouldn’t have sex with a monkey, would you?




It then occurred to me that, a couple of hundred years ago when the British had invaded and colonised most of Africa, we probably thought the exact same thing about black women. In fact, I’ve heard the term “monkey” used as a racist insult against black people, and this presumably arose because the first white people to see black people actually thought they were a type of monkey (But what’s funnier is trying to figure out what was going through the head of the first black guy to see a white man. He’d be like “Oh, shit! What the fuck is that? It looks like a person, but it’s got weird skin and blue eyes! Blue eyes! Is it diseased? I should go find a doctor... not even animals have Blue eyes. FREEEEAAAAKKKYYYYYY!!!!!!”). So, by saying that humans shouldn’t breed with creatures from another planet that look kind of like us but with different colour skin, am I also saying that white people and black people shouldn’t mix? Of course not. But then, why shouldn’t Sully totally bone that Na’vi chick? I mean, why don’t we have sex with monkeys? Why am I not dating a chimp right now?


Damn chimps, always stealing our white Tigers!

I suspect the reason is that we can’t understand them, and they don’t have the same level of intelligence as us. So, doing a smart alien chick that can speak English should be completely fine, right? I mean, if Chimps were as smart as humans, and could speak English, is there any reason we wouldn’t be having sex with them right now?



Well yeah, there is that - we just find human females a lot hotter. Now. But think about it – a hundred years ago, Kelis would have been considered unattractive:



Actually, I just wanted an excuse to post a link to that song. I would have put it in even if the ugliest woman in the world was singing it...

But the intelligence thing also bugs me – because it’s kind of saying “people with special needs should not be loved by humans”. So maybe my theory needs a little more work? Just like how in the Scarface game Tony says “You fucked a 16 year-old crippled bitch? Hey man, I don’t need that shit in my life!” and I thought “well, he didn’t say raped, he just said fucked. What’s wrong with having consensual sex with a 16 year old girl who happens to be handicapped?”. But whatever...




The final thing that Avatar made me think about was suicide. Not because it was so bad that I wanted to kill myself – but because I realised that if I had a body I was in full control of, and felt everything that body did, but knew I would just wake up in my own body if that body died, I totally would have jumped off that massive floating mountain just to experience what falling to certain death would feel like. I’d even put an iPod on my avatar, and listen to Tom Petty’s “Free Falling” as I did (the only way to fall to your death, in my opinion). But maybe that’s just me? That’s something I liked about Groundhog day – if you realised you couldn’t die, you would just do all sorts of things that should kill you. You know, for teh lulz of it.


But insanity out the way – I want to wrap this up with some proper review-type stuff.


Story: has been done a thousand times before, but then again so have most stories. And hell, Chaucer plagiarised most of his Canterbury Tales from other sources, and Shakespeare stole half of what he wrote, so not really a problem there. Sure, it’s exactly the same as The Last Samurai, which was exactly the same as Pocahontas, which was exactly the same as Dances with Wolves, but whatever. It’s cool – as long as people don’t go own about how original and unique it is, I don’t care.

Production Value: The animation I thought was really well done – better than the trailers would have had me believe, and it felt more like watching a live action film than watching an animation for the most part (I watched it in 2D). There were a couple of dodgy bits, but nothing too major. Generally, it was really well done.

Acting: Fairly standard here. I’ve heard a lot of people complain that the Colonel was really over-acting (“chewing the scenery”), but to be honest, Army and Marine Colonels often are that crazy – and the dude fit the role perfectly. It’s amazing how much emotion the Avatars had, too – but that should probably be in the above paragraph.

Quirks: Why was Michelle Rodriguez playing Linda Hamilton playing Sarah Conner in this film? Damn it, Jim! This is Avatar, not Terminator! Stop modelling characters on your ex-wives! We’re lucky Sigourney Weaver didn’t suddenly start shooting a movie about a cop infiltrating a group of Bank Robbing Surfers halfway through the film.

Besides, Sarah Connor wasn't even Linda Hamilton's best role:

Now THAT is what I'm talking about!

And... that’s about it, really. Familiar story – some cool effects, but nothing that has you saying “Oh my God! That was incredible!”, and that’s pretty much it. Decent movie to watch, but nothing ground breaking (I suppose the CGI is, but as far as I’m concerned, it looks real or it doesn’t. Nothing else to it. Then again, I’m not so big on these “effects movies” like 2012 or Transformers or whatever, and haven’t bothered to see any of the recent ones). Probably doesn’t deserve it’s rating on IMDB, but then neither do half the movies in the top 250 list (The Dark Knight is the 10th greatest film of all time? Fuck off!)


Rating:


This one’s so God damn tough, because I want to give it 50%, completely average – but I promised myself I wouldn’t do that because I give too many movies 5/10. Hence the 5 star rating system I adopt the rest of the time (Saw 6 is another I wanted to give 2 and a half). I suppose given how familiar and clichéd the storyline is, I should really go lower on this one, but at the same time, it’s far better than The Dark Knight, which I also gave 2 stars. So, just this once, I’m going to do it. I’m actually going to award 2 and a half stars to a movie! Putting this film squarely between “The Hurt Locker” and “Get Rich or Die Tryin’” in my books. That sounds about right.




2.5 / 5



I don't know if the 3D makes it any better... but I doubt it.


Voice

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

In America - The Review (Text)

First published Sept 2009

Jim Sheridan does direct some weird as sex sequences. And by that, I don’t mean the characters are doing anything weird, he doesn’t have anything on guys like Lynch or Cronenberg who actually make the sex itself fucked up (2 female television executives sprouting penises and raping James Woods, for example), but he still manages to make you wonder what the fuck he was thinking. Case in point, the sex scene from ‘In America’; an otherwise slow, emotional, feel-good movie, for some reason he decided that for the love-making scene, he wanted to change the pace of the film completely, so we are met with a montage of quick shots of the two main characters, Sarah (Samantha Morton), and Johnny (Some Irish guy I hadn’t heard of before, but who was really, really good), having sex on their bed, whilst a lightning storm goes on around them. Not that weird you’re thinking? That’s because I’m still getting to it, I’m well aware that bad weather doesn’t constitute a weird scene. Give me some credit here, will you? Anyway, what’s bizarre about the scene is that the sex is intercut with two other scenes. The first is of the couple’s daughters, who at the time have been sent out to get Ice Cream at the parlour their mother works in. This makes sense, because the girls were sent out, and we want to know they’re ok, but what’s strange is that Jim Sheridan decides to have a group of Transvestites walk into the Ice Cream place for no reason and smile at the girls. Now, I understand he’s trying to show the neighbourhood is a bit dodgy, and a bit different to where they grew up in Ireland, but this is just random. On top of that, we are also treated to shots of the black artist who lives below them painting a picture out of his own blood, in a manner extremely reminiscent of Brian from Spaced, when he first explains to Tim and Daisy the different types of art he does. Now, don’t get me wrong, the scene is well shot and everything, and is significant to the plot (unlike the thousands of films where the producers seem to just say “fuck it, let’s throw in a sex scene, I wanna see TITS!”), but it’s so different to the rest of the movie, in pace and in feeling, it just doesn’t seem to fit. Also, to be honest, if you start thinking about Spaced whilst watching a non-comedy movie, there’s got to be something wrong with it (unless, you know, it’s one of the million movies that was parodied by Spaced). And the thing is, this isn’t the only time Sheridan’s had a retarded idea for a sex scene (though luckily, it’s the only one I’ve seen where the stupid idea made it to the final cut). Watching the special features on my Get Rich or Die Tryin’ DVD, I saw him talking with 50 Cent about his ideas for the soundtrack to use for the second sex scene in that movie, and was saying he wanted to use “I’ll Whip Yo Head Boy” for the sequence. If to you that track sounds even remotely like it could fit a sex scene (unless it was a gay sex scene and whip is slang for “enjoy” or something?), then I guess we just have completely different views on how relevant to a scene the soundtrack needs to be. What’s next? Yakety Sax playing over the end credits of Saving Private Ryan? Fat Boy by Bizarre and King Gordy playing over the opening scene of The Machinist? Odd choices for sex scenes and soundtracks aside, however, Sheridan had gained more than enough respect from me after somehow managing to make an actually decent, non-hilarious movie with 50 Cent playing the lead (to this day I still don’t know how he did it, but I do love that movie), so when I saw In America was playing on Film 4 (+1, actually), I figured I might as well give it a watch, and I was not disappointed.
In America is a film about an Irish family who move to America after their 5 year old son dies of brain cancer. Now, unfortunately, I missed the first ten minutes of the movie, but from what I gathered later on in the film, the father has shut down almost completely emotionally since, and the eldest of the two daughters believes her dead brother, Frankie, still speaks to her, and before he left, granted her three wishes from beyond the grave, to use when she needed to.
When they reach America (expending one wish to get through customs safely), the family head into Manhattan, hoping to start a new life, with the father pursuing his dream of becoming an actor on Broadway. However, they soon realize that it may not be as easy as they had hoped, when they find it impossible to get an apartment in a good neighbourhood, through a combination of their lack of money, and nationality, and so are forced to trade in their car for a run-down flat in a tower full of Junkies in a bad neighbourhood. Still, their spirits remain high, and there are some nice scenes of them painting and decorating the flat to make it feel like home. We then move on to learn that the mother got a job working at the Ice Cream Parlour across the street, so her husband would be able to concentrate on his acting, and have time to go to auditions. The first Audition we see John at is absolutely brilliant, mainly because at one point, after it becomes clear he won’t get the part of the American he wants to play, the guy auditioning him asks “can you do a London accent?”, and John replies in a flawless ‘London accent’ (fucked if I can tell the difference between them, but his was brilliant) “You’re havin’ a laugh, mate, he’s only got two lines in the whole thing, do you want me to come over there and sort you out?”, which left me thinking ‘why the fuck didn’t he get that part?’ (though possibly contributed to the actual actor getting this role in the film?). This, however, is revealed to us moments later when he is told by the auditioner backstage that no matter how good his accents are, that’s not all there is to acting, and he needs to show more feeling, a reference back to how he seems to have lost his feelings since his son’s death, and is showing how it still affects him.
After this, the story evolves, and we get scenes of the family learning to adapt to living in America. First learning to deal with the heat and humidity New York Summers bring, then with the discrimination the Irish face living in New York (Junkies informing John that “All Irish are cops” as an excuse to mistrust him), and finally learning more about American customs when the kids go to a school Halloween party. Before this, however, we are given possibly the most tense scene in the entire movie when, after taking the kids to see E.T. at the cinema, the family is walking through a fair ground when the youngest of the girls notices they have a game where you can win an ET doll, if you can throw 7 tennis balls through a hole. The guy running the stall states that these balls do not all need to be in one go, and you can take as many turns as you wish, but each time you want to carry on, will have to double the amount of money you put down. However, when you do reach seven, you not only get the doll, but also get all the money you put down back. Providing you reach seven. At first, this doesn’t seem so bad, John gets the first couple of balls in, and manages to get all the way up to 5 balls on just $16. However, that’s when it all goes wrong, and his misses take him up to $32 dollars, and then $64. We see the scammer behind the stall grinning, and telling people who are around how much money is on the game, trying to draw a bigger crowd to put John off. John gets the sixth ball in, but misses on the next one. After this next miss, he is forced to take the family’s rent money out to try and cover the ever-growing amount he is betting on the game, and after another 2 misses, he is up to $256, all the rent money for that month. Having seen Get Rich or Die Tryin’, I would not have been surprised at this point if the family had lost everything, and had to fight to survive. However, the eldest girl expends her second wish, and her father makes the throw, winning the doll and all their money back. They return home triumphantly, even though John knows perfectly well he just risked everything on one E.T. Doll, and we are then treated to the previously mentioned bizarre sex scene, at the end of which we learn that Sarah is pregnant with another child.
The Halloween party does not go well for the kids, who turn up in outfits their mother made them, but realize to their horror that every other child at their school has had their outfits bought for them, and consequently look much better. After winning the prizes for “best home-made costumes”, the girls walk home with their father, annoyed that they don’t fit in, and that they were given “made-up prizes” because the teachers felt sorry for them. They complain to their parents that they want to act more like American kids do so they’ll fit in, and insist they’re allowed to go trick or treating. John and Sarah eventually give in, and tell the girls they can go trick or treating, but only in their own building, because it’s a dangerous neighbourhood. At is at this point that we are first properly introduced to the artist downstairs. Having knocked on numerous doors and received no response, the girls go to his door, which has “Keep Away” painted on it in big letters, and knock on it, shouting “trick or treat!”. Eventually, Mateo, the artist, answers the door, and this is how he is introduced to the family.
Mateo is played by Djimon Hounsou, whose name I cannot pronounce, but who I can tell you played Maximus’s best friend in Gladiator, and has been in numerous other films including Blood Diamond and The Island. His performance in this movie is absolutely outstanding, and even from this first scene, he is incredible (which explains the Oscar nomintation, I guess. Not that they know brilliance when they see it *cough* Robert Downey, jr. for Natural Born Killers, Martin Scorsese for Goodfellas, Leo for The Departed, Doug Hutchison for War Zone, Tom Hanks for Saving Private Ryan, and about a thousand others. Though I may need to check out who really did win best supporting actor in ’94, cos if it was Samuel L. Jackson for Pulp then I could live with him beating out Rob Downey. And I guess since hanks has already won it twice, it might be a bit unfair on the other actors to give him another. But, I digress...) Anyway, the girls go into Mateo’s apartment whilst he looks for “treats” to give them (speech marks on treats because they’re trick or treating, not to imply some fucked up innuendo. I really need to stop listening to “Rape Me” by Nirvana when I’m trying to write. Bastards!), and during this time, they reveal to him what happened to their brother. He is really moved by their story, and by their strength to carry on, and he decides to give them his pot of change, as he doesn’t have any sweets for them. The girls thank him and go home, to find there are several dollars in the change jar. Sarah, grateful to him for this, suggests they invite Mateo over for dinner, and he agrees to come. However, there is some apparent tension between Mateo and John, and after the girls sneak presents (a coin and a ring, representing future wealth and marriage) into Mateo’s dinner, John leaves the table, looking angry. At first, I was worried because Mateo didn’t appear to have done anything to upset him, and I thought that John just disliked him because he was black, but later on, we find out this isn’t the case. Sarah and John discover at the hospital that the Foetus Sarah is carrying is damaged, and there was a good chance either it or she would die if the pregnancy was allowed to continue. Sarah puts on a brave face for the girls, and tells them it’s going to be fine, but John, having already lost one son, can’t handle it, and storms out. On his way out, he runs into Mateo, and starts asking him aggressively if he’s in love with Sarah. Mateo tells John that he is, in fact, in love with him, and (oh wait, that explains the Oscar thing, actually, playing the gay card always works; Philadelphia, Capote, Milk...) then states that he is in love with everything in the world, and when John tells him how bad his life it, Mateo simply informs him that he would happily switch places with him anytime if he could. This calms John, and he walks back home, deciding to try harder to appreciate what he has. It also, unfortunately lets us know something is up with Mateo. Although we can pretty well guess it at this point (Yep, it’s AIDS. Don’t worry, you’re not a homophobe if you guessed that... well, you might be, I just mean the two aren’t related), we only know it for certain much later when the eldest daughter finds Mateo collapsed, and gives him mouth-to-mouth whilst a nearby junkie pleads with her not to.
After this point, we see the effect of Mateo’s illness, and Sarah’s pregnancy take a toll on all the characters, and John struggles to make money to pay the hospital bills. Mateo keeps on playing with the girls for as long as he can, but eventually is admitted to hospital, too ill to carry on. The movie starts to get really dark at this point, and after the baby is born, it looks as though it might die. The doctors say it needs a transfusion to survive, and that the only member of the family with the same blood type is the eldest daughter, who fears she may now have aids. At this point, the movie could have gone either way, and either become one of the darkest, most painful to watch movies ever, or been one of the greatest feel-good movies of all time. Thankfully, Sheridan chose the latter, and gives us the happy ending everyone wanted (though the other way still would have been one hell of an interesting film, and still definitely worth a watch). The ending is incredibly powerful, and very moving, even if it does seem like a cheap trick to try and get audiences to cry (So if you’re trying to work the “sensitive guy” angle, try watching this movie with the girl you’re into, I guarantee it’ll work. Well, unless you’re too macho to cry, like I am...). Fuck it, I didn’t want to say it, but I will, so Spoiler Alert for the next paragraph – The baby lives, but Mateo dies. However, he leaves the family the money to pay off their $30,000 medical bills (Yeah, turns out he was really rich but just lived in a crappy apartment cos it helped his art or something...). We then see a shot of the dad and the girls on the balcony, and the father tells the youngest he can see Mateo waving goodbye to them, riding past the moon like E.T. did (E.T. was her favourite movie, and they saw it earlier, remember?). At the same time, the eldest girl uses her last wish to convince John to say goodbye to her dead brother, Frankie, and he does this. Then, the icing on the cake is that the eldest girl spends the whole movie videotaping everything, and right at the end we see a shot of Mateo smiling and laughing, playing with the girls. Cheap but effective, cinema 101. And Hounsou’s performance was so realistic that it does feel as though you are watching the character himself, rather than just watching an actor play him, so this makes it all the more powerful.
Overall, then, I would say this is an amazing, feel-good story (unlike last year’s “Feel-good movie”, Slumdog Millionaire, which involved a kid getting his fucking eye burned out! Not even War Zone had something that bad in – though it did have a dude get a chairleg through the eye... Rock), and I would definitely recommend watching it. The plot is great, the acting is amazing (especially Hounsou – I might have to watch Mystic River now, see if Robbins really did deserve to beat him. Still, I’m glad it didn’t go to Lord of the Rings instead, like 90% of the Oscars that year did...), and the cinematography is brilliant. Remember how I said I loved the way in Get Rich or Die Tryin’ that Sheridan filmed a lot of scenes looking in mirrors, and I especially loved at the start of the film when he’s filming through the car’s wing mirror and the bas makes the whole shot jump? Well, in this movie, he intercuts the actual footage of the movie with shots from the eldest daughter’s videocamera throughout, and this gives the movie a more personal, and more real, feel. There is also a brilliant scene of comedic relief in which John, realizing he will have another child to support, and failing at his auditions, starts to drive a cab around New York, and a business man in the back of the cab starts telling him that, even though he knows he’s white, he’s a rapper, and starts busting an endless stream of mad rhymes. John responds eventually by getting out the cab, opening the back door, and pulling the guy out by his feet into the street. I had to wonder whether Sheridan wrote this rap himself, given I know he wrote one of the ones used in Get Rich or Die Tryin’, and even though this scene did have a far more surreal comedic feel than the rest of the movie, I still really enjoyed it, which is good since often when directors try to put in random comic relief, it just ends up ruining the movie (looking at you, Wes ‘Ok, so we’ve got a really dark movie about two girls being abducted and murdered, let’s throw in a scene where the incompetent cops on the case try and get a lift with a black woman in a truck full of chickens, and she stalls it and they go flying off the roof because the truck can’t take their weight, plus the weight of the chickens, how funny will that be?’ Craven). So, yeah, even the random stuff was highly enjoyable, and actually added to the movie, rather than detract from it.
Oh, one more thing, at the end we are told that the movie is “dedicated to the memory of Frankie Sheridan”, so it is possible that the dead son was based around either Jim Sheridan’s brother, or son, or someone, which just makes the whole thing seem so more real. Plus, the film was written by three members of the Sheridan family, so is clearly a very personal movie for them.
Time to rate this film, I guess...

RATING

****

4/5

This movie is simply brilliant, and you can’t help but smile at the end, even if just seconds before you felt like you wanted to cry (yeah, I know - shut up...). I will definitely be looking out for any other movies by Jim Sheridan, as the two I have seen so far are so damn good. Watch this film!

Oh, and sorry there are no links to videos in this review – My laptop isn’t connected to the internet at the time of writing, and I doubt I’ll be bothered to add any when I do upload this. Oh, but if anyone knows a big movie where a well known actor played a gay character (along the lines of Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, not Rupert Everett in My Best Friend’s Wedding – uh, not that I’ve watched that, or anything...), and wasn’t nominated, please private message me. And I just came up with another, Ledger for Brokeback mountain (and for The Dark Knight as well. Come on – the make-up and tailor-made suits are a dead giveaway). Man, this seems like the easiest way ever to get an Oscar Nomination...

Punisher: War Zone - The Review (Text)

First Published Feb 10 2009 (to Facebook)

It's not often I watch a film that completely and utterly blows my mind. The last time this occurred had to be when I watched True Romance for the first time at the age of 16, and witnessed the awe of Tarantino's best ever script being brought to life by Tony Scott and an incredible ensemble cast. I blame that movie for both my inability to hold on to a girlfriend for any reasonable period of time (cos let's face it - there aren't many real-life Alabamas out there, right?), and also my obsession with working stoners into every script I attempt to write (most notably 'Jesus' from "Teenage Wasteland" and that one which was pretty well a rip-off of the Sopranos episode "Pine Barres"). Whilst Punisher: War Zone did not have quite the same impact on me as True Romance did, it was the closest thing to that level of brilliance I have seen since then, and probably ranks #2 on my list of favourite movies.
Punisher: War Zone, for those who don't know (and since I suspect only Ed and Josh are going to read this - you definitely do know), is based on the Marvel comic book character: The Punisher (surprisingly enough). More specifically, it focuses on the Punisher as portrayed in the Marvel "Max" series of comics, which are probably the only comics in existence to use the word "cunt" on a regular basis, and come with an "Explicit Content" warning on the cover. Definitely not kids' stuff.
I was, at first, worried that a woman would be directing the movie. However, having seen the ‘R-Rated’ trailer on youtube(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njbGoOGVZx0), I decided that even if the trailer had shown every single gore-shot from the movie, that would still be more than enough. It hadn’t! I also later discovered that the director had also previously helmed a project know as “Hooligans”, or as we call it in the UK: “Green Street”. That’s right – the director of fucking Green Street directing a Punisher movie. Two words: FUCK YEAH!
The film opens (I assume – we got to the cinema late so if there was a pre-credits sequence, I missed it) with the Punisher staging a full-scale assault on the Cesare mob family’s mansion , and wiping out almost every member of the family within a matter of minutes, sustaining very little damage himself. Upon leaving the mansion, Castle is confronted by a Police officer who, instead of arresting him, informs Frank that mobster Billy “The Beaut” Rossotti is involved in a deal for “biological material” down at the docks. Frank heads straight over, and messes the mobs’ shit up, knocking Rossotti into a glass bottle recycling machine in the process and horribly maiming him. Unfortunately, during his raid, Frank accidentally kills an undercover FBI agent who was infiltrating Rossotti’s gang, and the rest of the film focuses around Frank trying to protect the dead agent’s widow and daughter from the horribly-mutilated-but-still-very-much-alive Rossotti, who changes his name to ‘Jigsaw’ soon after the accident, presumably to reflect the fact that his face had to be put back together like it was a Jigsaw puzzle...
The storyline is by far the coolest, and also the most believable, of ANY comic book movie I have ever seen, and the action is almost non-stop. Even though it has been altered slightly from the comic books, making Frank younger and shortening his length of “active time” as The Punisher, it still neatly fits in with the keeping of the MAX series. There are copious amounts of blood and gore, which border on gratuitous at some points (for example: the fat dude getting his head blown off in the elevator), and the make-up effects far surpass those seen in blockbusters with ten times the budget (looking at you, Dark Knight).
One of my main problems with The Dark Knight was that the CGI on Two Face looked absolutely shit, and was painful to look at. Jigsaw’s mutilated face, on the other hand, looks utterly convincing, and this keeps you in the movie, rather than throwing you out as The Dark Knight did by distracting you by the absolute shitiness of it. War Zone’s plot is also far superior to that of The Dark Knight (which had possibly the most ridiculous and pointless plot of any movie other than Smokin’ Aces – though Smokin’ Aces pulled it off with a FUCKLOAD more style. For conformation on this, look it up: http://www.cracked.com/article_16848_p2.html. See what I mean? That movie made less sense than, well, any other movie the whole of Cracked.com could think of! Fuck the Dark Knight!) , and the acting was a whole league above it (I hate to say this, seeing as how I love Christian Bale and everything – but seriously, dude – what the fuck happened to you in that movie???? I’m not saying I could do any better, but having seen The Machinist and American Psycho, I know you sure as hell can!). In fact, as far as I’m concerned, the only thing The Dark Knight really had going for it was Heath Ledger’s Joker who, I’m not going to lie to you, was fucking incredible. However, even Heath’s deranged performance as the Joker was surpassed, in my opinion, by Doug Hutchinson’s turn as Billy Rossotti’s psychotic brother ‘Loony Bin Jim’. If you’ve seen The Green Mile, you’ll know Hutchinson can pull off playing a psycho with ease, but you have no idea just how incredible he is until you’ve seen LBJ – the most psychotic character I’ve ever seen depicted on film. Seriously, this guy makes Tommy DeVito look like Vincent Gambini (Joe Pesci references FTW! Oh yeah! ... and by FTW I mean “for the win”, not “fuck the world”). Ray Steveson’s turn as The Punisher isn’t bad, either – with him adopting the classic “don’t fuck with me” expression the Punisher is known for throughout most of the movie (see the cover of “In The Beginning” for the comic book interpretation of this look). His American accent isn’t bad, either. Though he’s no Hugh Laurie (in House, M.D.; not Jeeves and Wooster).
So basically what I’m saying is: Fuck The Dark Knight! Give Warzone all its Oscar nominations, and build a gold statue of Doug Hutchinson on Hollywood Boulevard. At least I would say that if I didn’t fucking hate the Oscars since discovering they awarded one to Roman Polanski – a know paedophile who faces arrest if he ever sets foot in the US. Seriously, guys – I don’t mind you nominating Mickey Rourke – the odd fight or domestic abuse incident here and there is just about acceptable. But a fucking paedophile? Fuck the Academy! If I were famous I’d boycott the Oscars (unless, you know, I was pretty well guaranteed to win one... apparently being an Oscar winner can triple your salary in the movie business). But back to War Zone... Whilst LBJ is by far the biggest attraction of the film, many of the smaller support characters are also highly entertaining – and the movie has probably the coolest list of support characters ever (with the exception of True Romance – Walken and Pitt totally stole that movie)!
Not only do we get the characters of both Micro (played by “Dennis” from Jurassic Park), and Soap – but we also get a shitload of classic bad guys from the comics, too! Billy Rossotti has been given Nicky Cavella’s bodyguards ‘Pittsy’ and ‘Ink’ from the comics, and although Ink doesn’t have his trademark glasses, and his psychotic tendencies are played down (presumably because LBJ was more than crazy enough for both of them), the two of them are still a welcome sight. The use of “The Slavers” Cristu and Tiberiu Bulat as Russian smugglers is also pretty cool – though you can’t help feeling they should probably have been held back in case the producers want to make a sequel... Introducing Black Irish gangster Maginty as a Parkour master was also a pretty awesome idea, and the two scenes he appears in are both amazing.
So much of this film was influenced by the comics it’s unbelievable: The shootout in the mansion, the dialogue, the characters, everything! Even Maginty’s death scene was taken from the comics (though it was in fact Pittsy who died that way in issue 6 of the MAX series...). This is possibly the only comic book movie which the fans will agree does the source justice – and that is something this movie definitely does. By taking some of the classic elements the fans were expecting to see, and adding in new, better elements – such as the introduction of Loony Bin Jim, this movie managed to surpass my VERY high expectations of it – and I believe deserves to be crowned as the best comic book movie ever.
The ending is also absolutely amazing. Taking the standard set up of “bad guy has 2 sets of hostages and forces good guy to make an impossible choice”, but puts an insane twist on it. While Batman Forever (I know I keep referencing Batman Films, but they’re the perfect comparison...) does this with Two Face setting up an insane, half-baked plan which gives Batman more than enough time to save both hostages and defeat him, the showdown at the end of Punisher: Warzone plays out EXACTLY as you would expect it to in real life! No other movie has ever had the balls to do this, and for this, I have decided I love Lexi (Alexander – the director).
The last thing I want to mention in relation to the movie is the fantastic scene where Loony Bin Jim and Jigsaw set out to recruit soldiers from low-income neighbourhoods, which parodies US military adverts so closely that it actually becomes hilarious to watch. The “be all you can be” speech, combined with the American Flag waving behind the two of them is just a fantastic touch, and the best military advertising parody ever!
I’m also pleased to be able to say that, although the director did not want to at first, she eventually agreed to let the Punisher keep his trademark skull for the movie, which the Dolph Lundgren version did not. A lot of people will say the skull is “stupid” or “comic bookie”. But, in fact, it’s very practical. It’s painted on The Punisher’s body armour, and is designed to attract the aim of the Punisher’s opponents away from his face, and towards his heavily protected chest. SO SUCK IT!
In all, I have to say that this movie deserves a 10/10, and I have in fact rated it as such on imdb, which I believe everyone with a shred sanity should do right now. This movie is almost too awesome to exist and I will definitely be buying the DVD (though since I already have the other 2 Punisher movies, I probably would have anyway). I may even see it in the cinema again. IT’S THAT GOOD!
To summarise: See this movie! Fuck The Dark Knight!

RATING

*****

5/5 - by far my favourite comic-book movie, it's a solid 5/5 if you like comic book or revenge films. Even if you don't - check it out, because I highly recommend it.


EDIT: Since writing this review, I have gone on to watch the entire series of "The Wire", and would like to just point out how awesome Dominic West is - I didn't even realize he was British until I watched The Wire, so his accent in this must have been pretty damn good.

Friday, 30 October 2009

SAW VI Review (Video)

I went to see Saw VI on Wednesday evening, and couldn't believe how packed the cinema was. Here I review both the newest film in the Saw franchise, and give my opinions on all the other Saw films as well.





Having looked on Wikipedia, I discovered that Saw II was in fact a reworking of Darren Lynn Bousman's (the director's) script, The Desperate, which explains why the feel is so different to that of Saw's 3 & 4, which were both by the same diector. I also forgot to mention, when discussing the new direction style for the 6th film, that I missed some of Bousman's camera and set tricks deployed in the 3rd and 4th films for transitions between scenes. e.g. The scene where Officer Riggs (Remembered his name - Just thought "Lethal Weapon") throws the blonde girl through the mirror, and as it shatters we cut to a scene of Strahm interrogating Jill in a police cell on the other side of the mirror. These tricks really impressed me when watching those 2 films, and I wished they could have been used in Saw 6.
I also noticed that one of the producers is called "Hoffman", and couldn't help but wonder whether or not he is just using the franchise to enact his fantasies, in the same way as Chris Moltisanti did in his Saw based film Cleaver in The Sopranos.

Overall, I felt this movie was very enjoyable, and exactly what you would expect from a Saw film. However, if you didn't like the other Saw films, i can safely say you won't enjoy this one, and you won't undersand it unless you've seen all the others. From a personal point of view, being a fan of the series, I would like to give it 3 stars, but being objective, I don't really feel I can do this - because compelling as the movie was, there were too many flaws in the plot, and of course, it's been done so many times before that there wasn't anything new being brought to the table.

Rating

**

2/5

Great for Die Hard Saw fans, a definite must see, but if you're not a huge fan of the series, don't bother with this one, because it's certainly not the best.

Monday, 26 October 2009

Musings on Zombieland (Video) *Spoilers*

READ FIRST! I had originaly intended this to be a review of the film Zombieland. Unfortunately as I have spent the last week or so discussing it with angry posters on IMDB, I got a little distracted by their arguments, and missed many of the key points of the film I intended to bring up. So, I shall instead summarize those points now, before my musings.

1. The Cinematography and look - This was fairly standard, to be honest. Nothing that really jumped out at me particularly, but at the same time it was done very competantly without any jump-cuts or poor angles that I recall. One of the coolest visuals was at the very start, where we see the American Flag hanging from the bonnet of an upside down car (presidential car?), and zoom out to show the destruction caused by the zombies (mad props to the set designers/dressers for this). The opening titles also look amazing, being shot in Ultra-slow motion, and showing various people being devoured or chased by zombies as back story to the main plot of the film. I'm not one of those guys who loves slow-mo everywhere, and feel often it can ruin scenes completely. But as a credits scene, this worked perfectly. Especially loved the "Boomer" near the start.

2. The music - the Soundtrack to this movie was very cool, with some awesome rock and metal music, including Jimmi Hendrix and Iron Maiden. But by far my favourite music moment came when Wichita and Talahassee were smoking weed at Bill Murry's house, and we are treated to Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper". Great moment, though if I'm honest, I could have used a little more Cow Bell...

3. Continuity - It was cool to see Columbus reload his shotgun every 2 shots, as often you watch films where a double barrel can fire 5 or 6 rounds before being reloaded, which is ridiculous. Witchita seems to fire too many shots with her
autoshotgun before reloading, but the fact Columbus is seen reloading so often just makes the film so much cooler. It was reminiscent of the Dolph Lundgren film The Mechanik. But, you know, with Zombies and junk...

4. The Narrative - I loved the way everything was Narrated by Columbus as the film was going along. I felt you really got into the character's head, and could understand his motivations and thinking perfectly. Then again, so many people are comparing him to Michael Cera, I may just have been reading too far into the character.

5. The "rules". Columbus's set of rules for surviving Zombieland always appear when relevant to the scene, and this was a really cool effect. I especially loved when Woody Harrelson samshed up a mini van, and you just saw "Rule 18: Limber Up" fall off the back and crash to the floor afterwards. Sure, it takes you out the film, but Zombieland is one of those movies to be watched as a film, and does not require you to submerge yourself in the story to the degree most films do to work. It's just a silly comedy.

6. Woody Harrelson. Nuff said. (watch the video)





"Thank you for shopping at Ass-Whippings are Us!" - is what he should have said in the supermarket (or Arse-whippings if you're British). Also, relating to the whole supermarket thing, I thought the whole "Zombies being so fat because they've eaten so much" thing would amount to more than it did. Maybe some kind of tactic later involving poisoning food or starving them, or just luring them in somewhere with food. I dunno, it just seemed like they must have put that in for a reason, but it never came to anything. Possibly if there's a sequel?

I also felt they should have told the girl playing Little Rock to actually look down her gun's sight when Talahassee was teaching her how to shoot. Exhale slowly and squeeze the trigger all you won't, you won't hit a thing if you're not looking down the God Damn sight! But maybe I'm being too picky?

Oh, also to back up the theory that Columbus may be based partially on a young Bundy, it should be noted that Bundy's last murders (other than Kimberly Leach) occurred in Talahassee, Florida. Yeah, I know that's probably just a coincidence, but I'm going to keep pushing this point, cos I'm so damn fed up with people comparing Columbus with Michael Cera, and to be honest - I would rather be associated with a serial sex killer than a guy who's THAT much of a pansy.


Rating:

***

3/5

Good fun movie, definitely worth a watch, but lacking in some areas, and with what is essentially half a plot after back story and narrations. Still, if you like Zombie movies, you'll probably have one hell of a good time watching this. I know I did...