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

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

Review - Easy A

Release Date (UK) – 22nd October 2010
Certificate (UK) – 15
Country – U.S.
Director – Will Gluck
Runtime – 92 mins
Starring – Emma Stone, Penn Badgley, Amanda Bynes

In her first (and long overdue) truly lead role, the delectable Emma Stone stars here as Olive, an unnoticed and unpopular high school girl who realises she can find the attention she seeks (not to mention better her financial standing) through lies and a clever manipulation of the school’s rumour mill.

Upon hearing the basic plot, you might feel an uneasy suspicion creeping in that the underlying construct here – unpopular teen achieves popularity through some drastic change in their lifestyle and gets one over on the popular kids who used to give her a hard time – might sound like one we’ve seen one too many times before (and usually not done very well), but leave any preconceived notions about what you think you might be in for at the door; as this film aims to subvert the modes of the teen drama at every turn and does it incredibly well.

Burt V. Royal’s script is astute and clever. The dialogue is fresh and humorous, in a Juno-like manner, only outstripping Juno’s achievements by far; a great many scenes are brilliantly funny, creating a wonderful and fun overall tone for the piece.

The film is current to the degree that it factors technology into the plot in a manner that makes it vitally integral to the story; Olive delivers her confession to everyone by uploading a video of it onto the internet – a nod to the YouTube generation. And facebook is of course dealt with too, with Olive’s very likable teacher Mr. Griffith (Thomas Haden Church) reiterating facebook sceptics’ main complaint with the social network: that status updates are boring, not to mention the fact that it can be used as a method of surveillance and tab keeping for anyone who endeavours to document their every action on there.

Why Stone hasn’t shot to stardom long before now is one of the great mysteries of Hollywood. Her gorgeous looks, sexily husky voice and excellent comic timing has always marked her out as a unique force in the business, and her versatility and talent as an actress has been proven before now (perhaps best with her wonderful turn in Paper Man in 2009), but the role of Olive proves the perfect vehicle for Stone to showcase her skills, assuring her star status now, if it was ever in question before. Stanley Tucci is another actor who also shines here, as Olive’s unbearably cool and sharply witty father.

The speed at which the school’s rumour mill works and travels is wonderfully represented through some excellent camera work, as quite lengthy shots zoom at high speed through the school’s grounds, pausing regularly to observe various people as they first hear the rumours about Olive’s promiscuity.

The film deals with its delicate concept well – Stone herself has stated she has at times been concerned about the possibility that the film might glamorise promiscuity among younger girls, but the film manages to retain a sturdy moral foothold in the background of proceedings, which it also smartly uses to end on.

The absurdity of religious fanaticism is also touched upon, with Amanda Bynes’ character Marianne’s Christian group running a domineering and imposing presence within Olive’s school. Olive intelligently disregards the group’s nonsense, but also turns to religion later in the film when she is desperate to absolve her conscience.

The literary basis here is used to great effect beyond Olive’s story paralleling that of Hawthorne’s The Scarlett Letter, through one neatly later reverted back to Huckleberry Finn joke.

We are even treated to a little 80s nostalgia being thrown into the mix here, as Olive bemoans the loss of chivalry in modern day courtship (who doesn’t want John Cusack holding up a boom box for them outside their window?) by reminiscing over love scenes in 80s movies.

This is by far the best teen comedy to come out of Hollywood in ages, and will hopefully be praised for its qualities and inventiveness for a long time to come, as well as gain Stone the true recognition that she deserves.

Share

Review - 'The Lawnmower Man: Director's Cut' on DVD

(This review was written by me for the site www.thefilmpilgrim.com, on which it can also be found)

Release date (UK DVD) – 18 October 2010
Certificate (UK) – 15
Country - USA
Director – Brett Leonard
Runtime – 140 minutes
Starring – Jeff Fahey, Pierce Brosnan

It cannot be denied that Stephen King is capable of writing great science fiction, some of which has been successfully realised on the big screen (David Cronenberg’s The Dead Zone (1983) and Paul Michael Glaser’s The Running Man (1987) for example), and in 1992, director and screenwriter Brett Leonard chose to adapt one of King’s science fiction short stories titled ‘The Lawnmower Man’.

Dr. Angelo (Pierce Brosnan) is a top scientist working for Virtual Space Industries, who (though his morals are in the right place) is attempting to develop a new and effective war weapon out of the technology of virtual reality. After a chimp test subject breaks loose and causes havoc, a mentally challenged lawnmower worker named Jobe (Jeff Fahey) is willingly pulled into Dr. Angelo’s work, becoming his first human test subject. Dr. Angelo increases Jobe’s intelligence to an astonishing degree, but along with this, dangerous ideals form in Jobe’s head and he discovers that he holds a few extraordinary powers.

The Lawnmower Man is firmly and openly an exploration of the benefits and also detrimental effects of the technology of virtual reality (a new advancement at the time of filming). It serves primarily as a cautionary tale about what might happen to our culture and the way in which we communicate with one another (right down to how sex will be altered) should we become too enveloped and essentially enslaved by these false words in which we can play the God of our own universe. At the same time, however, it speculates on whether virtual reality holds within it the amazing potential to ‘evolve’ the human mind (and what dangers might arise if this is done too quickly and taken too far), and the possibility that it could be the vehicle used to create a Utopia on Earth (Jobe’s goal in the film; albeit through twisted, murderous means).

The three books we briefly see sitting atop Dr. Angelo’s television set towards the start of the film – The Ascent of Man, The Science of Mind, and Science Fiction Films – tell the viewer everything they need to know about what is to come.

It is a story that draws strong parallels with Daniel’s Keyes’ classic SF novel Flowers for Algernon (surely an influence on King’s story) – in how a dim-witted individual gains incredible intelligence at a rapid rate through breaking-edge science, and this having fatal results. It also shares a strong parallel with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein – in how a creator nurtures his creation through science and that creation eventually turns into a monster (indeed, at one point Jobe says to Dr. Angelo: “I’m sorry you hate what you created”).

This is the most unjustly criticised and underrated film that I have ever come across. Many deride and despise it; on the internet movie database (IMDB.com) it currently holds a dire rating, and elsewhere one reviewer calls it ‘a drool-inducing sci-fi disaster’. My being an SF addict perhaps makes me a little bias in my final judgement, but this is a film that has everything that the medium of film strives to convey; there is strong emotion, a haunting score that compliments the horrors at play, great acting (both Fahey and Brosnan are exceptional), moments of hilarious comedy, a compelling story, and perhaps most importantly, an intelligent and thought-provoking premise – and a highly relevant one, even to today’s society – that the viewer can grapple with; right down to it delivering a uniquely ambiguous ending, which the viewer can make up their own mind on regarding its meaning.


Many people today – mostly male youths – spend the vast majority of their time immersed in the false worlds of video games (much to the complaint of their girlfriends, which this film also observes via Dr. Angelo’s stringent work habits – his partner complaining: “I’m young Larry, I don’t want to become a recluse just for you; I’m into reality reality, not this artificial reality.”) Video games themselves are becoming ever more life-like and thus seductive all the time; we are drawn in by the ability to create our own world, with our own rules, where we can act without consequences, and this temptation poses a long-term threat which this film viably highlights.

Religion is treated here cleverly: first the film shows it to be a safe haven in times of need, then as a corrupted and brutal thing (the church priest being easily swayed by money and whipping Jobe brutally at any excuse he can find). It is also rife with religious symbolism and statements: from Jobe’s Christ complex, to him nailing Dr. Angelo to a cross in the virtual world, to his statement when fully embedded in the virtual world: “I am God here!”

Those who find this film a shambles mostly complain about its dated visual effects (which are presumably poor for 1992), but dates aside, I argue that they are no worse than those used in the film Tron (1982), and that film is a revered as a cult classic.

Where the film’s ambition does fall a little flat is in its prediction that by the year 2000 everyone would be as immersed in virtual reality as we are in television. This is simply a risk that predictive SF takes, and I don’t think that this film can be faulted for perhaps predicting too early in the future a problem that may yet still arrive. Another fault is perhaps in the kind of powers that Jobe acquires – telepathy, telekinesis and more – and the way it showboats them for the sake of some action scenes.

For Lost fans this is a minor gold mine with regards to the cast; with Jeff Fahey and also Doug Hutchinson being familiar faces from the hit SF show (and indeed the Lost writers likely chose these actors due partly to them staring in this film, since Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse were heavily influenced by King).

If you are a big fan of science fiction, you may just find this to be the surprisingly superb, undiscovered gem that I found it to be. Fans of Lost would be well served just viewing it to see a young Jeff Fahey in action. Those not inclined towards SF should perhaps steer clear, as the harsh effects, occasional spouts of scientific jargon, and the film’s hard-SF premise might prove a little too heavy and ‘geek’-saturated for some.

The extras on this double disc set are numerous, but slim in running time. There is a storyboard that is shown alongside a scene from the film, the deleted scenes that were taken out in the commercial version (very interesting to observe – since this version is all the better for them being kept in), a featurette made at the time of filming, and even the entire sequel (far more despised by people than this film), Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace, on a separate disc, plus more. No director’s commentary, however, feels a little lacking for such an edition.

Share

Review - Watchmen

Review - Watchmen (an old review of mine that I'm pulling across from my university magazine website)



After many a failed attempt from far more accomplished directors than himself, Zack Snyder has taken his shot at bringing Watchmen, the masterpiece of popular fiction created by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, to the big screen. Such huge talents as Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky and Paul Greengrass have all tried and failed to adapt the graphic novel in the past, suffering various problems pre-production. Even Alan Moore himself claims his work to be ‘inherently unfilmable’, though his view of the film industry is not exactly bias-free, with previous works of having been butchered on screen in various ways (The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell, V for Vendetta). In spite of the odds being piled against him, Snyder took the risk to adapt the comic he and many others adore, treating it with much care in the process. I am glad to say; the final product is a marvel.

Not to mislead – the graphic novel this certainly isn’t – yet it is such an admirable and well realised effort that it is deserving of much praise. Hot off of his highly successful (if a little juvenile) 300, Snyder has proved himself a major talent worth watching, even if his repertoire is currently a little lacking in originality.

Key to the film’s success is Snyder’s faithful approach to the material. The only major difference is the film’s ending; altered from that of the comic to something that provides the same effect, but through a different means. With this smart change, much screen time that would have been used up for explanation if the original ending had been retained has been saved. The level of depth and substance in the comic is quite monumental as anyone who has read it will know. What Snyder has managed to fit into his 160 minute theatrical release is really quite impressive.

The majority of the characters are excellently realised, near perfect representations of their comic counterparts. Certainly the most effective are Jackie Earle Haley’s Rorschach, Patrick Wilson’s Night Owl II and Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s The Comedian. Dr. Manhattan is for the most part successful. It is only Silk Spectre II and Ozymandias that occasionally fall a little short of the bar, delivering the odd weak line and failing to be fully believable at times.

What some claim to be the film’s biggest flaw is that it is quite an inaccessible film to those who have not read the graphic novel (more in terms of its appreciation than comprehension). If Snyder’s faithful approach would had to have been sacrificed for this to be otherwise then I say what does it matter? This, as can be imagined, is more a film for the fans rather than the speculative viewer and I believe it is all the better for it.

Bringing a slick and stylised visual approach (suffused with lots of necessary head strong violence) to an intelligent and complex piece of popular fiction, Snyder has managed to create something quite special. This is a remarkable and wonderful effort to bring Moore’s complex and groundbreaking masterpiece to cinema.

4/5

Share

Review - Appaloosa/Westerns in Hollywood

Review - Appaloosa/Westerns in Hollywood (an old review of mine that I'm pulling across from my university magazine website)



The Western is something that has only occasionally been tackled by Hollywood of late. When it has been however, some great works of cinema have been produced. Adhering in various degrees to the sub-genre of the modern or revisionist Western, there have been released some highly distinctive, dark and wonderful masterpieces; The Proposition, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men and the 3:10 to Yuma remake to name a few.

The revisionist Western is a genre that favours realism over the romanticism of many older, traditional Westerns, updating the genre in the same way that many franchises (such as Batman and James Bond) are doing today and altogether delivering far darker, more realistic and arguably better films than their predecessors. This is not a new thing; the revisionist genre dates back even to the early 50s and can be applied to such classic Westerns as The Magnificent Seven, The Wild Bunch and The Unforgiven. One could argue that the forming of this sub-genre was an essential and highly necessary step that the Western had to take after its ‘golden age’ in order for it to survive successfully in modern cinema.

To deviate from that genre today then could either be looked upon as a very foolish and unnecessary foray into old territory, or perhaps a brave trend-breaking effort. Ed Harris’ Western effort Appaloosa does not apply to the revisionist genre at all. Visually it looks the part, but in story this is very much an old-school Western, more paying tribute to the John Ford style of Westerns than attempting the revisionist approach. I believe this is the foundation of its downfall (upon which many other flaws are laid) for it is trying to reproduce a type of film that cinema has wholly exhausted and moved on from.

Based on the novel of the same name by Robert B. Parker, Appaloosa is actor Ed Harris’ (The Truman Show, A History of Violence, Gone Baby Gone) second directorial outing after his 2000 debut Pollock. Also co-starring alongside Viggo Mortensen and having co-written the script, this is very much Ed Harris’ film.

The story concerns two lawmen, Virgil Cole (Harris) and Everett Hitch (Mortensen) getting hired by elders to take back their town from villain Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons) and his men. The matter turns more complicated with the arrival of Alison French (Renee Zellwegger) who attempts to come between the lawmen. This is a story obviously very heavily influenced by the tale of Wyatt Earp; with Cole representing Wyatt Earp and Hitch representing Doc Holiday. The characters are so sparsely pruned in fact that it is hard to see this as anything other than a direct rip-off of the classic tale.

With an excellent cast, it is a film of great performances placed among a flawed and uninteresting plot. The three male roles in this film are all considered great actors in Hollywood at the moment and here they do an excellent job as usual. Renee Zellwegger gives a highly convincing performance as the fickle widow who will attach herself to whichever man holds the biggest gun. These performances alone though are unfortunately not enough to save the film.

Humour within in the film is certainly one of its biggest problems. We are constantly bombarded with lame quips, most often from Harris, which leave you confused regarding the seriousness of the piece. It is quite a contradictory film in this regard; from the offset we are presented with a hard visual exterior, leading us to believe it will be a film serious in tone (if fanciful and romanticised), yet to fill the gaps in a struggling plot we are dealt small doses of humour throughout (even in the most serious of instances) which ultimately ruin the tone and prevent any suspense from building.

A second thing seriously hampering the character of Virgil Cole is his constant struggle with vocabulary, causing him every ten minutes to shamefully look towards Everett and ask ‘What word am I looking for?’ Is he significantly under-educated? Does he merely have an atrocious memory? The matter is never cleared up. All this suffices to do is make our hero look like an idiot. Would we ever see Kurt Russell or Kevin Costner’s Wyatt Earp shamefully begging Doc Holiday to finish his sentence for him? Certainly not.

One thing expected of most westerns, regardless of sub-genre, is a significant and entertaining gun fight/showdown towards the end of the film. In this the film also disappoints. The showdown lacks in tension or a suspenseful build-up, much like the rest of the film, and is over far too quickly, giving more time instead to the cheesy and unbelievable final scene concerning the two friend’s apparently unshakable friendship.

If you want to watch a tale of lawmen restoring order to a town harassed by villains watch one of the Wyatt Earp classics; either the fantastic Tombstone, or its slightly lesser companion Wyatt Earp. If you want to see an excellent, dark and original Western of late watch one of the many masterful revisionist Westerns spawned in recent years. If you want to watch a romanticist Western then you would be far better off watching a classic of old. There is simply no place for this film today. In a time when the Western is just starting to get its foothold back in cinema and regain some recognition, it is flawed and confused pieces like this that do not help its cause.

2/5

Share

Review - Changeling

Review - Changeling (an old review of mine that I'm pulling across from my university magazine website)



Having taken his first shot at directing in 1971, Clint Eastwood is a director who seems to be growing better and better with age. Arguably hitting his peak with the fantastic Mystic River in 2003, Eastwood has astonishingly managed since then, not only to continue releasing films of a high calibre, but also to deliver more excellent efforts each time. From Million Dollar Baby to his WWII companion pieces Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, we are seeing the man who conquered the acting world finally start to truly conquer the directing world also (and at the astonishing age of 78). Eastwood has always been an excellent director (Play Misty for Me, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Unforgiven) but only now are we seeing him reach the true peak of his directing career.

The question I and many others were dying to find out the answer to then was does Changeling continue the trend? Very gladly; yes. This is almost certainly Clint’s best, most accomplished film to date, and perhaps the one he will be remembered for when he’s gone. It is no overstatement when critics call this film a masterpiece, for it is certainly nothing less.

This is the true story of a mother going to every length necessary to get back her child, whilst being severely oppressed by a corrupt Los Angeles Police Department in the process. Angelina Jolie stars as Christine Collins (the mother) and John Malkovich as Reverend Gustav Briegleb who aids Collin’s fight against the police. One of the most notable things about this film is Jolie’s performance. She delivers what is most certainly the performance of her career as the grieved but confident and eternally persistent mother. After turning down the role primarily due to its distressing nature involving the loss of a child (as she has children of her own) it is a good thing that she finally gave in, as we identify so closely with her character here as an audience, due to her delivery, that I doubt anyone else could have pulled it off with the same effect and intensity. John Malkovich as his usual intellectual self gives a sturdy performance as the man pushing the buttons to get Christine’s plight noticed. Certainly worth a mention is the absolutely fantastic accompanying cast that lines the film (Jeffrey Donovon, Michael Kelly and Jason Butler Harner). To talk of their characters would be to ruin the film for those who haven’t seen it but it is these performances, coupled with those of the main stars that make this film a triumph in acting alone.

Centrally sharing a similar theme with Mystic River concerning a community suffering at the loss of a child this is a film that also delves into corruption, the judicial system, female independence and much more. It is a film that portrays the 1920s to perfection; there is no stone unturned in creating the illusion. Eastwood thankfully chooses to portray a realistic 1920s over the usual romanticised impression that many films give of a more innocent period. Los Angeles is a city in which the government, police force and medical establishment are all steeped in sadistic corruption. Perhaps the best example of realism in the film is a scene that Eastwood intended to make extremely difficult to watch; great attention to detail is paid where a man receives the death penalty by hanging. There are certainly some brutal elements to this film (hence its 15 certificate), they all however add to its overall effect. Eastwood himself describes stories concerning children in danger as “the highest form of drama you can have”. Brutality is therefore essential here in exercising this fear within the audience.

Fans of Curtis Hanson’s L.A. Confidential or David Fincher’s Zodiac will adore what this film has to offer; I personally found it reminding me on many occasions of them both. It achieves more however than either of those excellent films do, which should tell you right there just how great Eastwood’s latest effort truly is.

5/5

Share