Jameson Cult Film Club Quatermass and the Pit Screening

Jameson Cult Film Club’s first ‘Chills in the Chapel’ Halloween screening was Quatermass and the Pit, a film that is perhaps more science fiction than horror.

For the screening Jameson went to great lengths to decorate their eerie Union Chapel church setting; unique lighting, a thick foggy air and actors portraying generic horror types walking around all combined to create a creepy atmosphere. And on the stage below the screen, they had even built a version of the most important scene setting in the film – a large black alien spaceship with rubble strewn at its base.

Several actors were also present to portray the film’s main characters, staying in character whilst the audience were taking their seats and chatting. These actors then gave a small performance and introduction before the feature started. This pantomime-like audience engagement served to build a sense of joviality among the audience, and the way in which those characters were introduced so dramatically on stage certainly increased excitement and anticipation among those present who had not seen the film before.

Quatermass was originally a British television series in 1953, called The Quatermass Experiment, which had various other series and films that followed it. The 1967 film Quatermass and the Pit tells the story of a strange object that is unearthed in a London underground station as an extension is being built. The odd nature of this sleek black object and the primitive human skeletons that surround it draw the attention of a host of people; the military, anthropologists and most importantly, the quirky and verging on crazy scientist Professor Quatermass (in this Quatermass outing, being portrayed by Andrew Keir).

As they manage to penetrate the object, they discover it to be a Martian spaceship that has been buried underground for millions of years. The ship and its inhabitants begin enforce psychic effects upon the people involved and London is thrown into disarray, as what is effectively a delayed Martian invasion unfolds.

Being an old Hammer film production, one would expect the effects to be a little bad and likely very dated, and they range here from extremely poor (the Martians themselves, who look like large grasshoppers), to really rather good at a times. For the audience at hand though, this played as a straight comedy; laughing often at both the effects and the very exaggerated, over the top and impeccably British acting within. This seems the sort of film though that perhaps wasn’t even meant to be taken too seriously back when it was made.

It is possible that what the film is really commenting on is World War II and the Holocaust. There is much at play here that relates to this, such as an attempt by the Martians to kill off a particular kind of people (the small minority immune to their psychic manipulation).

The film is also daring in the way that it disregards religion and hypothesises that aliens might have played a hand in our development (“You realise what you’re implying? That we owe our human condition here to the intervention of insects?” asks the Ministry of Defence incredulously).

What strikes about this film the most though is its intelligence. Dealing with both deep and allegorical themes, whilst still managing to retain all of the science fiction and horror thrills you could want serves to create something quite special indeed. This is a gem of science fiction that deserves to be more widely seen and appreciated.

Share

Somewhere Review

Release date (UK) – 10th December
Certificate (UK) – 15
Country – USA
Directors – Sofia Coppola
Runtime – 98 mins
Starring – Stephen Dorff, Elle Fanning, Chris Pontius

Somewhere is Sofia Coppola’s fourth directorial outing. Sharing notable similarities in tone, style and plot with her hit film Lost in Translation it is understandable that some might be sceptical about this film’s prospects; fears being that it might prove to be Coppola’s aim to repeat her greatest success – thus not leaving much room for originality.

Although there are indeed some very strong parallels between the two films, such as situational comedy hinged on the seemingly odd habits of foreign cultures (here the Italians, and in Lost in Translation the Japanese), rest assured that this is no strained attempt by Coppola to repeat her former glory.

Somewhere focuses on the character of Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff), a famous Hollywood actor who is living the idealised lifestyle; he has all of the women he could want, a fancy car, is an adored Hollywood actor, and yet he isn’t happy, finding his life unsatisfying and lacking meaning in every respect, bar his relationship with his daughter Cleo (Elle Fanning), whom he has been guilty of neglecting for much of her life.

The unfulfilling cycle that Marco lives out (jumping from woman to woman, partying frequently, publicising his films and clearly not enjoying it, and so on) is represented beautifully from the first shot of the film by what serves as a continuing motif here – a Ferrari. The film opens with a partial shot of a circular road, on which Marco drives his Ferrari around repeatedly (what seems like many times); clearly representing the cyclical nature of his life at this point in time and the fact that it is leading nowhere – he just keeps returning to the same point. This is a very long and drawn out shot, which you could see was already causing some boredom among the audience, but it does serve to set the tone perfectly for what the rest of the film will be like. Coppola very often lingers on a single shot (sometimes on something vaguely interesting – a set of twins’ pole dancing routine, on Cleo resting her head on her father’s shoulder – and sometimes of not much at all – on the two of them sunbathing) for a very long time, which will likely split audience opinions in two; those who feel that Coppola is superb at timing – at making great points with these shots and knowing just how long to leave it before finally cutting away, so as not to labour the point, and those who find them bore-inducing and unnecessary.

The Ferrari motif that represents Marco’s current lifestyle is revisited later on many times, most notably with Marco abandoning the car and walking away from it at the end of the film; representative of him walking away from his unfulfilling lifestyle and presumably towards the choice to spend more time with the only thing that truly holds any real meaning for him - his daughter.

Another successfully subtle and brilliant Coppola moment here is the way in which the most important line of the film is delivered; Marco says something to the effect of “I’m sorry I haven’t been around” to his daughter, who is several feet away leaning out of a car window, but behind Marco a helicopter has started up and the sound the blades cause considerably drowns out Marco’s words, invoking a puzzled response from Cleo, leaving us unsure of whether she heard him (or perhaps read his lips) or not, and wondering whether Marco chose this moment to apologise on purpose, due to cowardice, since he knew that his words would likely be drowned out.

Elle Fanning gives the best performance out of the cast here, proving her as wonderful a young actress as her sister, Dakota Fanning. Dorff is also excellent and even Chris Pontius (of Jackass fame) is well cast here, in a very funny and likeable role. Michelle Monaghan and Benicio Del Toro also put in turns that are extremely brief but still very welcome.

The comedy here (and there is great deal) is mostly successful, if sometimes coming across as a bit strained. Coppola again successfully draws decent comedy out of the juxtaposition of two foreign cultures, and also again mocks the ridiculousness of backstage and public situations that actors must go through in order to publicise their films.

This is another subtle and understated masterpiece of Coppola’s, about one man’s internal struggle to find meaning in his life. Just be warned: not all Coppola fans are likely to come out of the cinema thinking so – there have been some negative responses by fans to this film, and indeed the clapping at the end of this screening seemed a little half hearted, as though some were unsure of whether it truly deserved applause. This is likely simply due to the film taking subtlety, a downplayed nature, and a lack of events to extremes (if Lost in Translation sceptics thought nothing happened in that film, wait until they see Somewhere). Just retain an open mind, notice the elegant of motifs and expert script structure, and don’t expect to see that Coppola magic in quite the same form as you probably know and love here.

Share

Tron: Legacy Preview

Tron: Legacy, the eagerly anticipated sequel to the 1982 cult science fiction classic Tron isn’t out for general release in UK cinemas until December 26th (surely the best Christmas present anyone could ask for this year), but tonight audiences were treated to a sneak preview, which was made up of five scenes from the film (four of which were in 3D), plus a final montage, all of which totalled 23 minutes of screen time.

The preview opened with a steady stream of computerised text appearing slowly onscreen, to the sound of key strokes, detailing how those present would be the first people in the world to see this amount of footage from the new film.

The first scene we were treated to centered on Sam Flynn meeting with Alan Bradley, who, as many have seen from the trailer, hands Sam the keys to his Dad’s disused arcade and suggests that he visits it, the scene culminating in those fantastic lingering lines: “Alan, you’re acting like I’m going to find him sitting there working; just: ‘Hey kiddo, lost track of time’,” and Bradley’s response of: “Wouldn’t that be something,” coupled with a wry smirk.

After the first scene, each following scene we were shown seemed only a small jump ahead of the previous one in terms of story time, leaving us with a sense of coherency and an unexpected lack of disjointedness. In the following scenes we witnessed such key moments as Sam’s battle outfit fitting by four creepy women; Sam’s first disc battle, where he wins by a clever manoeuvre; the first time Sam meets Olivia Wilde’s character, Quorra; and Sam’s reuniting with his father, Jeff Bridges’ character Kevin Flynn, for the first time in years. No light cycle action was present unfortunately, however, save for a couple of quick sequences shown in the final montage.

What strikes the most about this film, from the segments that we were treated to, is firstly the sublime effects; this is 3D used perhaps to its best effect yet – the computerised grid world is the perfect setting to explore and test the technology in new ways. As Sam is thrust into this computerised world, from the battles he fights to his simple detainment and transportation, the shots make a wonderful use of spacial awareness – there are often large voids of space and distance around and below the characters, and some dizzying and sweeping shots of such serve to give you a wonderful sense of vertigo, inducing those rare chills up your spine on quite a regular basis.

There is also a real sense of quality about this film, which might come as a surprise to some. There’s a (probably intentional) Abrams’ Star Trek-like feel about Tron: Legacy’s set up – and indeed there are some direct similarities between the films present; something much loved in geek SF fandom is being rebooted here, and with that comes its risks. But luckily, from the footage we’ve seen so far, it looks like this will also go the way of Abrams’ Star Trek in terms of quality and will end up being a lot better than both sceptical Tron devotees and first timers might assume.

Even from this short preview you can tell that the casting choices were excellent decisions; Garrett Hedlund has a coolness and sincere likability about him, Olivia Wilde is both seductive and cheeky here, and about Jeff Bridges’ virtues nothing needs to be said. The only main character that was hardly shown to us at all here (beyond a few shots in the final montage) was Michael Sheen’s villainous Castor. Add to all of this a hauntingly dramatic and powerful score, and you’ve got something quite special indeed.

Those who caught this preview likely came out far more excited about Tron: Legacy’s prospects (not to mention aggravated that they couldn’t watch the whole film there and then) than they were beforehand and those who missed it but who are eagerly awaiting the sequel, rest assured that, based on this footage, the film will certainly not disappoint come December.

Share

Batman 3 is titled The Dark Knight Rises

News to satiate Bat-fans keeps coming thick and fast of late. First we had the announcement of Hardy’s lead role and now Christopher Nolan has revealed two crucial pieces of information in an article in the L.A. Times; firstly that the title for his third Batman film will be ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ (certainly a mouthful; clearly they have opted to put ‘the dark knight’ in the title to tie the film as closely as possible to the last and more successful film – what would be wrong with plain old ‘Batman Rises’, however?), and secondly, to many people’s surprise, that the villain The Riddler will definitely not feature in the new film.

Most assumed The Riddler’s appearance a given at this point, and also that this might be the role in which Hardy has been cast, but it seems Nolan is drawing from elsewhere for Batman’s next foe.

Nolan also gave one other, rather enigmatic quote: “We’ll use many of the same characters as we have all along, and we’ll be introducing some new ones.” Some are taking this as Nolan implying that old characters might be brought back from the dead. It could also, however, be a simple statement used to avoid giving anything else away or committing to anything.

Nolan also reaffirmed that it definitely won’t be in 3D and that he’ll be sticking to 2D, as well as the usual high-def IMAX sequences. It is good to know that not all directors are jumping on the 3D wagon. Coincidentally, James Cameron also announced today that he would definitely be making Avatar 2 and 3, and both in 3D.

Do fans think that The Riddler’s non-inclusion is a good or bad thing? Just which villains do people think are the most plausible choices now (bearing in mind it will likely be Hardy who will fill these shoes)? Is the title a good or bad choice, and is it what you were expecting (‘Batman Reigns’ was always a speculative favourite of mine for the third film, since Batman Begins’ release)?

Share

Darren Aronofsky to direct Machine Man

While Darren Aronofsky is currently locking down his deal to direct Wolverine 2, he has also just signed on to develop and direct Machine Man, a cyber-thriller about a gadget geek at a forward thinking tech firm who is tired of being average and unnoticed in his life, and so decides to replace his weak flesh with high-end performance titanium upgrades of his own design. However, he then discovers that dark entities have heard about his changes and have formed plans to use him for their own ends.

Mandalay Films picked up the rights for the partial manuscript written by Max Barry last year. Barry is also publishing one page of his story online per day as a real time serial, which you can read here, and the complete story is set to be published as a novel by Vintage books in 2011.

Mark Heyman, who co-wrote Black Swan and co-produced The Wrestler, will be adapting the story into a screenplay for Aronofsky. Cathy Schulman will produce, with Barry himself serving as executive producer.

Being that Aronofsky was originally set to direct a reboot of Robocop, a project which was declared dead a while back, it seems like more than a coincidence that Aronofsky has chosen something that shares strong similarities to the former. There also seems to be strong themes of obsession and power within Machine Man, topics that Aronofsky has dealt with successfully many times, making him a great choice for this adaptation.

Aronofsky is looking to schedule to shoot this film straight after Wolverine 2 is completed, which he is no doubt currently busy with, trying to figure how to bring his own unique stamp to a superhero sequel.

Do Aronofsky fans feel that this is a worthwhile venture for the acclaimed director? Which are you looking forward to more: his Wolverine 2 or his Machine Man?

Share

13 Assassins Review

Release Date (UK) – TBC
Certificate (UK) – TBC
Country – Japan
Director – Takashi Miike
Runtime – 126 mins
Starring – Kôji Yakusho, Takayuki Yamada, Yûsuke Iseya, Gorô Inagaki

Set at the fall of the samurai era, 13 Assassins is the story of a group of warriors (mostly samurai) who band together in an attempt to assassinate the sadistic Lord Naritsuga Matsudaira (Inagaki). This is because they are worried about what would happen if he were ever to occupy the Shogun’s throne – the fear is that he would bring malice and cruelty upon the nation (he even claims at one point he would like to bring back the ‘age of war’ that plagued the country in an age past).

You won’t be far into the film until you (or those that know Akira Kurosawa’s work) will come to realise that this is nothing but a direct remake of Kurosawa’s classic Seven Samurai. We have a band of noble samurai reinforcing a small village as they await the enemy’s arrival (who greatly outnumbers them), and there are only minor differences from the original’s plot present.

Even the seven wonderfully realised main characters in Seven Samurai are repeated here in amongst the titular thirteen assassins; from the calm and clever leader, to the crazy loner warrior who claims to despise samurais (the excellent Toshirô Mifune in Kurosawa’s film), to the stern samurai who is far more skillful than the rest, right down to the young apprentice samurai who wishes to fight despite his age. These characters are unfortunately not as well developed as those upon which they are based, however. One problem and cause of this might be Miike’s choice to increase the number of heroes from seven to thirteen – meaning we get to know each of them less personally than in Kurosawa’s film, due to the screen time needed to introduce and address all thirteen men.

Where Seven Samurai had depth, elegance and a clever use of tension to match its excellent battle scenes, all that this film has is action. In its action though and its depiction of battles, it succeeds marvelously – Miike’s skill for gore, for which he is well known, rubs off very well here. What seems like a weighty introduction to the film we later realise was just a ruse purely constructed to make us despise the main villain here to the utmost extreme. Using the comic book-style of extreme horror that Miike is renowned for (for example, with Audition and Ichi the Killer) – which seems a little out of place here – Miike shows Lord Naritsuga committing the most heinous atrocities merely for his own amusement; and for the rest of the film he retains this ‘noble who kills just to satiate his boredom’-attitude.

The problem of this essentially being a straight remake of Kurosawa’s masterpiece is that it doesn’t acknowledge itself as such, which may lead most to the conclusion that all Miike is really doing here is stealing from cinema’s past and not recognising his influences. Another way to look at this, however, might be that Miike is trying to pay homage to one of cinema’s greatest films, as a form of respect for Kurosawa. It is a minor issue, but one can’t help but wonder if had this been presented as a direct remake/updating of Kurosawa’s masterpiece, it might have garnered more respect from it’s audience for what it does manage to achieve.

Seven Samurai isn’t the only influence here; this also has a strong western feel to the film. Such westerns as A Fistful of Dollars and The Magnificent Seven were of course themselves remakes of Kurosawa’s samurai films Yojimbo and Seven Samurai respectively, so all influences here really revert back to the Japanese master filmmaker anyway, perhaps with a little Leone influence also thrown in.

Putting the lack of depth aside, the action here excels remarkably, which some may argue is all that truly matters for this type of film. As soon as the enemy is caught in our heroes’ trap the film doesn’t let up in terms of excitement. Miike steps outside of his horror comfort zone here and strives to create something quite grand, and succeeds in producing his most accomplished and polished film to date. All in all, fans of Japanese samurai ventures should come out thrilled and exhilarated, despite this film’s flaws.

Share

Black Swan Review

Release Date (UK) – 11th February 2011
Certificate (UK) – 18
Country – U.S.
Director – Darren Aronofsky
Runtime – 103 mins
Starring – Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel

For his fourth feature, the critically acclaimed The Wrestler, Aronofsky delved into the world of wrestling and essentially pulled back the curtain to reveal just how brutal and demanding the sport (sometimes deemed the lowest art form, for those who consider it art at all) is and how driven and dedicated its performers have to be. Aronofsky calls Black Swan his companion piece to The Wrestler, and it is easy to see why; here he again reveals a grittier world that most don’t usually get to see, showing us the same passions, dedication, obsessions and physical bodily abuse, but this time in the name of what is often deemed the highest form of art – ballet.

As Aronofsky has stated: “These dancers train their whole lives and basically make all the effort disappear [on stage] and then when you go backstage you see all the muscles and tendons, blood and sweat, and breath.” And Mila Kunis has revealed that every actor who played a dancer in this film was injured during its shooting at some point, including herself.

Whilst continuing the cinéma vérité-handheld camera style of The Wrestler, then, Black Swan is also a very different beast. Firstly, Aronofsky decided to opt for less of a documentary feel for this psychological thriller/horror film (his labelling), due his concerns that it would “suck away all the tension.” Secondly, make no mistake; this is firmly and truly a horror venture. Aronofsky reverts here back to the kind of abstract horror prevalent within his first feature Pi; with scenes of horrific grotesquery that could be deemed as potentially supernatural, but which we know are instead purely the psychologically-born hallucinations of our protagonist.

Natalie Portman plays the talented ballerina, Nina, who is given the lead role in Thomas Leroy’s (Vincent Cassel) latest version of Swan Lake. The lead actress must play both ‘the white swan’ and ‘the black swan’, and Leroy has concerns that Nina doesn’t retain the unrestrained passion necessary to successfully portray the role of the black swan, due to her restrained and introverted nature, but ultimately decides to award her the role anyway.

Nina’s obsession with trying to master the extrovert and wildly passionate nature that is required for the role of the black swan leads her to become daring, reckless and rebellious in her personal life – often led by the sultry Lilly (Mila Kunis) – which in turn allows for a larger playing field upon which her troubled subconscious can run amok.

Both the bodily horror and sexual exploration here are taken to shocking extremes. The way Nina’s body is affected by her transformation into a black swan and some of the gruesome scenes her troubled mind conjures up are quite disturbing. Nina is a girl who is very shut-in and smothered by her slightly twisted and bitter mother (very similar to the mother-daughter relationship in Carrie) and as it is implied that Nina is a virgin, so when she eventually decides to let loose and explore her sexuality it is taken to unexpected lengths. Vincent Cassel plays a key role in this exploration, as the brilliant but all too promiscuous and forceful dance teacher, who Cassel himself states “uses his sexuality to direct dancers.”

Portman here is stunning. Aronofsky has detailed how she has always been typically cast in innocent roles (bar a small divergence in Closer) and how they both wanted to corrupt that innocent image a little with this film. Kunis is also very well cast in what serves as a comic relief role – something quite welcome, among all of the horrors.

Aronofsky again re-teams here with the brilliant composer Clint Mansell, who takes elements of Tchaikovsky’s music and makes his own amalgamation for this film, to brilliant effect. Being a ballet film, a lot hinges on the score underlying the ballet sequences and other scenes, and Mansell delivers his best effort since his genius score on Aronofsky’s The Fountain. This is certainly a film that you should endeavour to see at a cinema if you can, to appreciate Mansell and Tchaikovsky’s scores at a loud volume (indeed, Aronofsky recently bemoaned the fact that it is growing harder and harder to persuade audiences to see films in cinemas rather than at home or on transportable technological devices).

The ending is where this film truly exceeds itself and almost hits upon true perfection itself, as Nina is fully taken over by her darker nature, which has been slowly emerging and swallowing her throughout the film, and transforms (literally to her and our eyes) into the black swan. The way the ending unfolds, coupled with Mansell’s score reaching a beautiful crescendo, Portman’s ballet (she was a dancer before Leon), the excellent special effects used and a final elegant credit sequence, this culminates in a powerful manner that you won’t soon forget.

Ultimately Aronofsky seems to be addressing just what lengths some performers are willing to go to (or perhaps feel they need to go to) in order to achieve the perfect performance. It is about dedication to producing the finest art, no matter what the sacrifice. This is Aronofsky’s finest film since The Fountain, his most accomplished film to date and thus a key milestone for him in his evolution as a filmmaker.

Share