The courts are the great levellers

Posted : 3 weeks, 5 days ago on 14 September 2008 09:15 (A review of To Kill a Mockingbird)

Watching the film was the logical next step after reading the novel. Although the film was in the IMDb Top 250 list, I wondered if it achieved that status purely because of the worldwide acclaim of the book. I needn't have worried. The story is so strong that it would have been extremely difficult to mess up a film adaptation, although in the end, it is still a thoroughly enjoyable experience in its own right.

The plot is just about world-famous by now, considering this book pervades English Literature syllabuses across the globe. Gregory Peck plays Atticus Finch, a single father who lives with his two children and a housekeeper. It is the 1930s and Atticus is given the task of defending a black man against allegations of rape from a white woman in the chronically racist Alabamian deep south. Hardly an enviable task. As a result, he is vilified by the town and blasted with sickening racist jibes.

The story is told from the point of view of his daughter. As well as her relationship with her father, her experiences with her brother and their childhood friends are also regaled. I anticipated, as a result, a cringe-worthy handful of child-actors playing the important parts. Thankfully, the acting from the youngsters in this film utterly blows away the unbearable and painful experiences we are subjected to by today's standards. When you watch a Harry Potter film, let's be fair, you can't enjoy such torrid acting, but here it is a complete non-issue.

Gregory Peck is the star of the show though. As Atticus, he is a man so righteous that even Jesus probably would have asked him for advice. His voice could probably have stopped a world war it was so comforting and authoritative. He is the perfect bastion of morality and an exemplary human being for his children. His courtroom scene is extremely rousing, with most of his lines being lifted directly from the book. He is ideal personification of Atticus, exactly the sort of character I imagined whilst reading the book.

There are a few differences between the novel and the movie adaptation. Whereas in the book, Atticus' children are subjected to the hate-filled rants of the townsfolk, it is only Atticus who receives abuse in the film. And it's mild at that. There is also no mention of the Finch's extended family, but as a result you have a much more concise and refined story. In all it is a fantastic adaptation which remains faithful to the novel and more importantly, it portrays Atticus brilliantly as the absolute legend that he is!

0 comments, Reply to this entry

I want your balls

Posted : 4 weeks ago on 12 September 2008 08:48 (A review of Planet Terror)

If I was going to make gory action films, there's no way I'd do it in any way different to Robert Rodriguez, the guy's a genius. Just a look at the cast list alone for Planet Terror had me salivating in anticipation and I was not disappointed in the slightest. Planet Terror follows a classic cut-and-paste zombie-film format of: Isolated bioweapon mishap -> zombie outbreak -> destruction of humanity.

Freddy Rodriguez is El Wray, the primary protagonist who has clearly fell foul of the law too many times thanks to his shady past. A chance encounter with his ex-stripper ex-girlfriend, 'Cherry', (Rose McGowan) leads to both rekindled emotions and a pesky encounter with flesh eating monsters who tear off her leg. After rushing her to the hospital, Wray is arrested for his trouble, but it's just as well the law is portrayed by everyone's favourite cult actor Michael Biehn, and both men soon realise that the law shouldn't get in the way of surviving a zombie apocalypse. Both men then team up with every survivor they can find in the backwater town.

The action is hysterical and ridiculously over the top, it's just perfect. Every single bullet impact seems to burst an entire balloon full of blood to accompany exploding limbs and viscera. The survivors eventually end up in a military complex overrun by soldiers who are staving off horrific mutations using overexposure to the chemical weapon responsible for the initial outbreak. The plot then thunders towards the ludicrous as Cherry affixes a high-calibre machine gun with under slung grenade launcher to her stump, and the evil soldiers are revealed to have already killed Bin Laden. This is without mentioning the scientist who collects testicles or the crazed doctor who oversees his son shoot his own face off. Everything I expected from the Grindhouse combo and more! Comically violent and far-fetched.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Not sleep proof.

Posted : 4 weeks ago on 12 September 2008 07:41 (A review of Death Proof)

Quentin Tarantino's contribution to the Grindhouse double-feature largely hinges on the unpredictable exploits of 'Stuntman Mike' (Kurt Russell). The film shows two separate groups of fun-seeking women and how their lives are affected thanks to interactions with Mike. Whereas Planet Terror was steeped in violence and over-the-top action, Death Proof is an incredibly slow burner. Incredibly slow.

The film is two separate stories which essentially follow the same pattern. A group of young, care-free women are stalked silently by Mike and the camera focuses primarily on them and their conversations, before they end up in a brutal confrontation with the sadistic stuntman. While there is no doubt in my mind that Tarantino is capable of some entertaining dialogue (as witnessed in Pulp Fiction & Reservoir dogs, which were beautiful until they were drawn out, quoted and flogged to death by film students everywhere!), there is no such example of ingeniously witty barbs here. The exchanges between both groups of women were utterly inane. I want to choose my words artfully so I can fully demonstrate just how senseless and insignificant the banter was between the superficial women involved.

This wouldn't be such a problem if the film could rely on action scenes to carry you through, but sadly at least 75% of Death Proof is the vapid chit-chat. What a let down! I can't emphasise how close I was to just turning the film off as a result of its complete failure to entertain. It's the complete opposite of what I expected given Tarantino has been given an almost free licence to entertain with explicit violence!

The other 25% of the film was great. Intense car chases, crashes and smashes. The middle of the film presents a sickening scene of vehicular manslaughter that pretty much counts as the only piece of action in the first 90 or so minutes in the film. I was impressed with the way the second segment of the film ended and it was quite a refreshing twist, but other than that, my I.Q points were well and truly routed by the films empty dialogue.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Adventurism gone mad!

Posted : 4 weeks, 1 day ago on 11 September 2008 01:23 (A review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull)

I'm quite surprised at how generous the other reviews and ratings of this film actually are. I have to say I was sceptical from the get-go when I saw this was being planned (along with Rambo, Rocky etc) and have to say my scepticism was justified. Indiana Jones is a character and a franchise with a lot of credibility. I can see why they decided to produce another film, though it was always going to be a risk with the ageing star of the show well past his best.

The film opened poorly and disappointed from the very beginning. Indy's first lines were utterly forced and I cringed at the prospect that Dr. Jones was going to be transformed from a witty dead-pan legend into a cheesy one-liner cracking Van Damme style character. Thankfully, they sorted out his persona as the film went on, but one annoyance that remained throughout the whole film was Ray Winstone. God knows how many times he changed sides in the film, or why Indy would even be friends with such an oaf in the first place!

The franchise is built on epic adventurism, and to be fair, the adventure in Crystal Skull is just that. However, previous films at least flirted with realism, this one blows it out of the water with nuclear bombs and replaces it with incredibility and sensationalism. That's what grated me the most. Certain things I just couldn't get my head around, such as using a snake as a lasso, escaping nuclear bomb blasts (and the ensuing radiation/slamming into Earth) in a refrigerator - but then it got worse. The biggest insult of all must have been a toss up between careering over three waterfalls in a clapped out vehicle (which floated without any trouble whatsoever) with no ill effects at all, or Shia LaBeouf turning into Tarzan and swinging through the Amazonian jungle with enough velocity to catch up with a speeding car chase. Oh boy.

For some, this might have classed as entertainment, but it was way too far fetched for me. It turned into a total farce. The only high point was seeing Indy's hat and John Hurt's performance. I expect a lot better from a Spielberg/Lucas team up!

5 comments, Reply to this entry

In-vesting in technology

Posted : 1 month, 1 week ago on 2 September 2008 03:49 (A review of Live Free or Die Hard)

Whoever agreed to make another Die Hard film certainly had a lot of pressure on their shoulders. It's not just any old action film, but probably one of the greatest films of the genre! The franchise spawned many elements which became clichés in later action films, but no matter what, the Die Hard films always managed to have novel stunts, action sequences and brilliant lines that put other films to shame.

The plot felt quite unconventional. I can't remember any other film which deals with such widespread cyber-terrorism, though it was quite hilarious seeing McClane pit his wits, not against marines or German master criminals, but frustrated internet nerds. These nerds essentially cripple the united states technological infrastructure, reducing its cities to pandemonium and leaving every law enforcement agency utterly impotent. Luckily John McClane's crime-fighting tools are his razor-sharp wit and a standard-issue 9mm, both of which aren't reliant on the internet!

McClane is still the linchpin of the franchise, he's still as legendary as ever. The classic everyman who takes it upon himself to dissolve the terrorist threat. I have to say, my favourite McClane moments included watching him take down - not one, but TWO different aircraft, beating up a woman with some good old-fashioned blows to the head and even shooting himself in order to ice a bad guy. It just doesn't get any more manly than that.

There are lots of references to the previous Die Hard films, from obvious one-liners to more subtle similarities regarding action sequences. There were plenty of memorable stand-alone action sequences which do the Die Hard franchise proud, which I was more than happy about. There was only one seriously neglected icon that was missing from Die Hard 4.0:



The Vest
1988 - 1995

No doubt it went to the big laundrette in the sky. Bruce swaps it instead for a skin-tight khaki tee and it performs admirably. While this film doesn't reach the heady heights that former Die Hard films have scaled, it's an adequate addition to the series. I just hope it's the last!

1 comments, Reply to this entry

SSDD

Posted : 1 month, 1 week ago on 28 August 2008 07:25 (A review of The Simpsons Movie)

It's quite difficult to write an extensive review for this film. You can probably count on two hands the amount of people who've told you 'It's just like...a really LONG Simpsons episode!' and... well I think that pretty much sums it right up.

Of course, we all know that The Simpsons hasn't been funny now for almost five years and this is reflected in the movie. There are the same number of hits and misses as if you strung five or so episodes together. Homer is a terrible father, Marge is a long suffering housewife, Bart so naughty, Maggie is a child prodigy and Lisa is still really really annoying and detestable. Springfield is quarantined thanks to Homer, but he manages to escape to Alaska before deciding to go back and rescue Springfield from the grasp of the Environment Protection Agency. The End.

The show should have retired with dignity by now, but you get the impression that the creators just couldn't live any more without their creation. No doubt a sequel is already in the pipeline, but it doesn't mask the fact that the TV show has been ailing for years. If it wasn't so established and resting on its former glories, it'd have been axed long ago.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Dark days for cinema.

Posted : 1 month, 2 weeks ago on 27 August 2008 07:29 (A review of Darkman)

Oh boy, what a disaster. MORE LIKE DISASTERMAN.

Sam Raimi takes control of his own creation in the story of a scientist-turned masked vigilante in this wholly forgettable superhero flick. I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt in places but it kept letting me down over and over again.

Somehow, Liam Neeson stars as 'Darkman' (he must not have been very famous back in 1990), the story of a scientist whose life's work is dedicated to developing artificial skin. Well it's just as well! His girlfriend is in possession of a memo which could potentially devastate a big time real estate developer - with mob connections! In an utterly inexplicable series of events, Neeson decides to take his girlfriend's paperwork to work with him, and the mob know that this threatening woman has a boyfriend, and they know where he works, and they know he's taken the paperwork with him (repeat, inexplicable)... so they show up just as he field tests his latest invention. You see, the DARK helps his artificial skin survive. Hmmm, you may think this could be of some use to, say, a superhero who spends his time lurking around at night?

Well, Neeson gets his face smashed in by the mobsters who show up while the lights are off. Not content with a few bruises they put him through a massive electric shock (which doesn't shock the men holding on to him) and try to drown him, before blowing him up in a massive gas explosion. Don't worry though, he survives, horribly burned. Which is where his skin expertise comes in! Instead of hanging around at night with his fake skin which can seemingly endure forever, he chooses to go out in the daytime with prosthetics that only last 99 minutes. Cue him taking revenge by mimicking and impersonating his mobster attackers in a bid to extract revenge!

Interspersed with his quest for vengeance, he undergoes the usual affair of trying to get his life back on track. But he's a broken man. We are shown this by special effects sequences of intense anger which look like the worst and most basic MTV dance music video you have ever seen. At the end of the film I was lost for words. Granted it is ridiculous for a purpose, but it was just terrible all over.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Disunited Kingdom

Posted : 1 month, 2 weeks ago on 27 August 2008 07:02 (A review of The Kingdom)

The Kingdom represents one of the most disappointing films I've seen all year. Even harking back to the time I saw the trailers at the cinema I was always cautious. With the current political climate regarding the middle east you can kind of guess the copy-and-paste elements that will fill any storyline a writer could ever possibly dream up regarding the situation. There will be a formidable and zealous enemy, unafraid of death. There will be American's who can fix the problems of a middle eastern country in record time. There will be some effort to highlight the similarities between both cultures afterwards.

I'd hoped after seeing Michael Mann's name attached that this film wouldn't be as trite as to plough down this path, but I was let down. It gets of to an exhilarating start, with a truly frightening depiction of a terrorist attack in a Saudi settlement. After delivering such a sickening opening, we're thrown back to the dreary offices in Washington or wherever in which there is a brief discrepancy over whether Jamie Foxx and his specialist team can head over to Saudi to aid in the investigation. They are eventually granted a week on Saudi soil and that's all they need.

Upon arrival there are a few 'hilarious' culture shocks in store for both parties. The Saudi's don't swear and one of the American's has breasts, it's all very tense. Initially the American's are extremely well protected, though relations are strained between them and the Saudi officer charged with their protection. Eventually, after the initial differences between the two parties are overlooked, Foxx's character and his guide develop a deeper friendship upon realising that they consist of the same moral fibre (shock horror, men in dangerous occupations still love their families). In the mean time his team (of mostly gung-ho obnoxious individuals) solve the riddle of the opening terrorist attack and manage to instantly pin down a culprit.

The film culminates in an action sequence that seems to have a disproportionate number of flaws. After finding themselves pinned in a firefight, the five FBI specialists-turned-special-forces troops are pinned down by fire from tall buildings on every side. Still, despite the fact that someone RPG's the hell out of their only cover in the street, they're able to dispatch the attacking force without a single casualty. I'd seen enough by this point.

Jamie Foxx is a good actor, his performance reflected this. His Saudi guide put in an even better portrayal, he seemed like the only human character in the whole film. The rest of Foxx's team were diabolical. Chris Cooper just seemed to have 'dead meat' tattooed all over him, Jennifer Garner was utterly unconvincing as a soldier and was probably only included for the breast gags and the other guy... well I can't remember what his speciality was in the team - he was thrown in as shoddy comic relief. Oh, and in case you were wondering the team solve the case and assassinate one of Al-Quaeda's most wanted men - just to hammer home the fact that the U.S doesn't mess around!

Utterly clichéd and extremely generic. There are worse films for sure, but this is nothing to write home about.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Family business

Posted : 2 months ago on 10 August 2008 02:12 (A review of The Addams Family)

There can't be a single person in the civilised world who isn't familiar with The Addams Family, they're pretty much ingrained into popular culture. Maybe that's more of a result of the TV show than this film, but with such a solid set of quirky and memorable characters, it was just a case of getting the casting right to ensure big screen success with this adaptation. For anyone who isn't familiar with the TV show - it's a low-budget black and white comedy extravaganza about a morbid family that dabbles with the macabre. The only other thing I remember is the excessive use of canned laughter and the fact that it was about a million-times better than its rival show The Munsters.

Who, then, is at the helm of this revamp of a sixties classic? One look at the director doesn't fill you with much confidence. Barry Sonnenfeld has such legendary films under his belt as:

- RV
- Wild Wild West
- Get Shorty

...let's leave it there. But fear not, film fans - The Addams Family came before each of these filmic disasterpieces! The plot is a by-the-numbers family comedy that simply cannot be messed up, even by the most inept of directors. The casting is superb, definitely the film's strong point. With such a tour-de-force of acting heroes it's impossible to be unimpressed with the film. They steal the show and they have fun doing it. Let's take a look at the family:

Gomez Addams (Raul Julia) - Gomez is the family patriarch. A hopeless romantic who adores his wife with unbridled fervour. His elite fencing skills and impassioned monologues are rivalled only by his flagrant disregard for his neighbours. The epitome of suave and sophistication.

The Rest - Including Gomez’s cultivated and sullen wife, their two children - obsessed with torture and morbid games, an uncle with a devilish temper and dishonourable intentions, the live-in witch who also serves as the family cook when not dishing out spells and hexes, one seven-foot tall servant and another who is always willing to lend a hand.



Together they form a close-knit family, all hidden away in the ornate family mansion which resembles an archetypal haunted house. A reoccurring theme is how their unorthodox ways and paranormal behaviour dumfounds visitors and guests to the Addams family residence, despite how open and relaxed they are about their ways. Considerably wealthy, though completely unconcerned with money, Gomez’s personal riches becomes a target for his devious lawyer. After befriending the Addams’, he introduces their long lost uncle back into the family under strict instructions to loot the personal vault. Hilarity ensues as the amnesia-suffering Uncle Fester attempts to survive in the family home as well as overcoming the hilarious home security systems in place to protect the Addams’ wealth.

The humour wasn’t enough to contain in one film and a sequel was spawned. Although all the cast returned, I still prefer this endeavour. Good, clean family fun.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Sheer brilliance.

Posted : 2 months ago on 8 August 2008 12:51 (A review of Dog Day Afternoon)

Films like this reaffirm my faith in cinema. It is without a doubt one of Al Pacino's least recognised film roles, but nevertheless, one of his most endearing and brilliant.

Dog Day Afternoon recreates the true events of a bank robbery that occurred in August, 1972 in Brooklyn, New York City. Pacino plays Sonny, the brains of what turns out to be a very inept organisation of thieves who raid their local bank. The plan immediately begins to collapse when the youngest accomplice breaks down and asks Sonny to leave the gang. During the heist, it emerges that the bank is not actually holding much money in the safe, resulting in a very small haul for the thieves. Upon trying to leave the building, they are confronted with New York's finest, resulting in an epic stand off that is now the stuff of legend.

The heist rapidly transforms into the hottest thing on TV and crowds flock from across the city to watch the public spectacle. Despite the hostage situation, the bank employees immediately build a rapport with Sonny. During his confrontation with the police he eventually exits the bank to talk to the police chief face-to-face and during a hilarious exchange, manages to get the baying crowds on his side. Despite being a common criminal, his charisma electrifies the crowd and they begin chanting his name, much to the bewilderment and frustrations of the police. Further sending them into a fervour, Sonny begins throwing money into the air, causing several elements of the crowd to overrun the police barricades.

The motive behind Sonny's heist soon comes into the public domain, when his pre-op transsexual partner is bought in to try and entice him out of the bank. Sonny is robbing the bank to pay for his operation - a revelation which causes gay rights activists to march on the scene adding further farce to the spectacle. Things take a turn for the serious when the FBI take over negotiations, refusing any further favours for Sonny, but promising to fulfil his flamboyant request for a jet to escape the country. The film ends with a dramatic event on the airport runway and Sonny's character is immortalised forever.

I'd recommend this film to anybody. Al Pacino is brilliant as a bungling, yet immensely charismatic crook and he steals the show. You'll not believe quite how the film escalates into the media frenzy outside the bank, but you'll be kept laughing and entertained throughout.

0 comments, Reply to this entry