From Central California and Northern England, two aspiring writers natter and share a blog. We like to talk about our disparate but oh-so-similar lives, offer opinions on literature and movies... and endlessly reminisce about Bioware RPG's.


We hope you haven't had enough of our disingenuous assertions. If you have, please don't hit us.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Film Review - Attack the Block


Why is it that the films with the best acting and most carefully-written scripts are always the ones with the lowest budgets, regardless of genre? Well I suppose not always, but still. Sometimes. And it's annoying.

This summer I watched a whole lot of action movies at the cinema, starting with Pirates of the Carribean 4, going through just about every superhero origin story you can name and ending with a cheerfully-ridiculous re-make of Conan the Barbarian. None of them were bad, exactly, not even Conan, but none save the surprisingly great X-Men First Class seemed to have had any particular effort put into their stories. Again, I liked all of them, but every one had the kind of script that would pass a creative writing class but wouldn't exactly make its author into the star pupil. They had lead actors who were basically coasting and collecting the big cheque at the end (Ryan Reynolds, Natalie Portman, even Johnny Depp, Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig) - not doing a bad job by any stretch, but not exactly going for awards. Nobody involved in any of these films seemed to really give a crap.

And then you have Attack the Block. I hadn't even heard of this thing, and I only rented it because it had a cameo from Nick Frost (of Edgar Wright / Simon Pegg fame). I rented it along with Priest, in fact, and saved Attack the Block 'til after the feature presentation, as a last minute thought before bed. I suppose I just answered my own question from the top of this page, right? But my point is that unlike the movies mentioned above (except X-Men, loved that one) this one was... not brilliant exactly, but it was something. Not a sequel or a remake or a concept - but a story.

That story sounds daft: this is a movie where alien monsters (which look exactly like the DVD cover of the movie Wilderness) land in a London housing estate and it's up to a bunch of semi-dangerous teenaged thugs to stop them, once they realise they are the ones being hunted. And Nick Frost appears in it, and it's written/directed by Joe Cornish from The Adam and Joe Show (one of my earliest memories of alternative comedy - they did crude, dumb sketches with Star Wars figures and plush toys, I loved it but I was very young. This was back when Channel 4 was good and... gave a crap. Hm.) So you'd be expecting a silly film here. A farcical parody, like Shaun of the Dead but worse. Or at least, that's what I was expecting.



But actually, I can't honestly say it's a comedy. It's funny, but not all the time, and only with the side-characters. Neither is this a horror, despite the Alien-like aliens who stalk our 'heroes' through their block of flats and the surrounding neighbourhood (more on this later) using all the traditional scary-monster horror movie tricks. And the aliens are not our focus, and there is real drama in there, so I guess we have to just call this a 'low-budget British sci-fi action film'. That's going to make it hard to recommend to people, which is a shame because it deserves to be seen.

The aliens in the film are awful. They are CG-made, cut-and-paste identical "big gorilla wolf motherfuckers" (I loved that line) whose presumably hairy bodies are so black that they appear like pure shadows (or indeed unshaded cartoons) with luminous cyan teeth. Despite the very unique and fun reason for them being here, and the scary, animalistic behaviour they exhibit, it is impossible to be scared by this effect. And any other low-budget British horror/ SF / comedy might have been ruined by this restriction, but not this one.

What makes this work is not the horror-style, the SF concept or the jokes, but the carefully-written characters and the cast of teenage lads who fill this film with some of the best acting you'll ever see in an action movie. Hell, in any movie - this is proper acting. I wonder how much they got paid for this, and then how much the cast of Thor got.

It's a simple basis, but deeper than you might think: teenage and mostly black gang members are running from alien monsters. But those teens (and the middle-class characters around them) are interesting, realistic and layered. And every one of them is a complex satire or social commentary. Aside from one or two smaller parts, none of these young people is wholly likable or loathsome. They're not there to lampoon or beg sympathy, but to represent a point of view. And each has a personality, too. I wish we had time to learn more about them, a feeling that came to me very strongly in the third act when we are given (slightly clichéd) glimpses into our lead, Moses' home. I wasn't expecting to care about him so much, and that really impressed me.


Incidentally, I don't mean to imply that the aliens chases are laughable, or that the comedy doesn't work. There is menace when the aliens strike, despite their appearance, and some of the comedy is brilliant. (This is too much madness to fit into one text, bruv!) And the two little boys following the gang around are particularly funny. But what so surprised me and so thrilled me here is the drama. It's obvious that Joe from the Adam and Joe Show really cared about these characters and worked damn hard at them. Same for the actors: Moses is played very well by John Boyega. I never quite hated that character, and never quite pitied him either. Brilliant.

This silly-looking film with drug-dealing, teen muggers fighting aliens is about something, and the kids are neither hilariously inept chavs nor lionised gangsters. They're a group of characters who almost never get a realistic portayal in film, and they're done very well. The movie is flawed, by the way, but there's something unique and great about it. Captain America was good, you know. I liked that a lot. X-Men, I think I mentioned, was great. So was Attack the Block.

--

And did you know that Bucky, Captain America's sidekick, is so-nicknamed because his middle-name is Buchanan? And that my name is Buchanan and nickname is 'Buch' (pronounced 'Buck')? It's true! And on this site, I'm sort of the sidekick to an American! Spooky.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

They're eating her! Then they're gonna eat me!



I used to work in a video-shop in Bolton, whose company also owned a very cheap movie studio, and so out catalogue was flooded with a crazy amount of terrible, super-low-budget horror films. So during that time I developed a hobby of watching awful, recent monster movies and laughing at them - and I got to see films like Ice Queen (they used a toy car on a model background in the establishing shots) Haunted Boat (which came out just after 'Ghost Ship' and featured a boat... that turned out not to be haunted at all) and of course - What Ever Happenned to Alice (which I still say is the 'worst movie I've ever seen').

Oh! And they also had one my absolute favourite films, the one that became a big running-joke for us employees - Trees 2: The Root of All Evil, which was about killer Christmas trees that over-run a hillside town. Trees 2 has the best damn ending-credits song I've ever heard in my life. If you ever see that movie in a shop - buy it, at any price.

But I've gotten away from my point here, which is Song of the Dead. I saw a second-hand copy of this at Blockbuster (who normally don't bother with this kind of film, except for The Asylum's boring efforts) with a box reading 'Day of the Zombie'.


It looks boring and generic - but what's that at the bottom of the box? 'The ultimate horror opera'? Yes! It's a zombie musical! And one so bad that the title had to be guiltily changed, just so that it would stand a chance of being sold! That seems pretty stupid to me - who would rather watch a nondescript zombie flick than THE ULTIMATE (or rather, first... I think) zombie musical?! Well, I love musicals, bad films and zombies so I grabbed it.

Here's the trailer - which actually gives a very fair and honest account of the movie's content.

And it was such a pleasure to see another one of these movies - that know they're bad and kind of mock themselves but also are really lovable for trying - and I have nothing better to do, so now I'm going to review it.

--

The movie is very, very low-budget, and very, very poorly-acted (by everyone except Steve Andsager, who is actually very funny). The singing is also truly awful, except by the guy you see at the beginning of the trailer there, but sadly he only appears twice.

The plot is deliberately very similar to George Romero's classic 'Night of the Living Dead' which these film-makers (like me) clearly adore. It begins with a man and a woman in graveyard, moves to a beseiged cabin in the middle of nowhere and ends on a pile of burning bodies. The Romero references are many, and usually painfully obvious.

Speaking of heavy-handedness, I think the biggest flaw here is the large amount of time and effort given over to political satire. Because of the zombie-musical concept, the movie tries to be lighthearted and throw jokes in there. Sometimes they're bad, sometimes they don't even make sense, sometimes they're actually good (the 'hobbies' song made me laugh out loud). But the zombies are referred to as 'zombie terrorists' and the chemical that caused the problem is the 'Jihad Ressurection Virus'.... yeah.
And we're not talking about a few throwaway lines here: this is the major theme of the plot. Believe me, after an hour or so it gets old. It's a nice enough idea to try to parody recent US foreign policy in your movie, make your heroes occasionally look like monsters, follow in Romero's satirical (but much much much subtler) footsteps... but this scriptwriter and this premise are just not capable of effectively satirising that. "We need to bomb any country that had anything to do with terrorism!" What, because your shack is beseiged by zombies...?

The songs themselves are actually catchy as hell! Unfortunately the singers are absolutely horrible, and the bland rock band who play them all are awfully samey. No big book numbers, sadly. All light rock.

It's a bad movie - there's no denying that. There is a tombstone at the beginning that looks like it's made of card and written in marker pen. One of the zombies is topless, and curiously she's always at the very front of the horde, next to the camera...

--

But at the same time this movie really is something special... or at the very least unique.

Every now and again the movie really impressed me with a subtle Romero reference (one character angrily calls another 'flyboy' under his breath) or a clever little spin on a zombie cliche (arms reaching through a wooden wall, waving slowly back and forth during a sad song).

And this is the thing, here. This is why I'd recommend seeing this film. Despite the fact that it's a kind-of-comedy musical, despite the huge limitations it faces, this film really tries hard to add a few things to the zombie lore.
There is a scene near the end when one of the characters who's been bitten gathers the others round him and starts to explain the zombies' motivation. Another character asks a rhetorical question, why do these reanimated corpses want to eat the flesh of the living? Why are they cannibals? And suddenly you think.... wait, that's actually a very good point! Why the hell do they? And the guy says this:

"By feeding on the living, the zombie's mind thinks that... it will live again! Their drive is to live: it's what they remember. But all they have is this unnatural state of death, mixed with awareness. Their minds tell them... that if they feed on the living, then they will live again, and the pain of being dead... will stop. / I can feel it inside me."

And that's a brilliant bit of writing, in this armchair reviewer's opinion. You have to watch two acts of cardboard tombstones to see it - but it's worth it.

Two stars out of five. But that's more than I'd give to most of the zombie films from the last ten years - including Romero's.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

"Mass Effect" Movie Officially In The Works!

It's (pretty much) official! Two years after the option to make the movie was bought by Marvel producers, the Arad Brothers (Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man adaptations), film production company Legendary Pictures has picked up the job of actually making it. A major company like Legendary buying the rights means that the movie will absolutely go into pre-production and will likely get fast-tracked within the next couple of years. If things don't go terribly, terribly wrong, that is.

Faith in video game films is still somewhat low, but with the recent release of Prince of Persia, that might change! Let's also keep in mind that we have the Arad Brothers (every Marvel movie since Spider-Man) and Legendary Pictures in on this (The Dark Knight, 300, Watchmen, Where The Wild Things Are, and...Beerfest) so this could be a definite winner if things are done right. What director are we gonna see at the helm? Which actor (actress?) is going to play a certain Spectre? And what of the crew? Dunno! But it's definitely exciting!

Sidenote: Matthew Stover's adaptation of God of War is out in stores today! Go buy it!

Source: io9.com

Thursday, May 13, 2010

DVD Subtitles


This is just a short blog, but I wanted to gloat!

I'm watching the film 'October Sky' (an anagram of 'Rocket Boys', the original title - neat!) and by the way this movie is fantastic. I'm really loving it - it's a rare thing to see an inspiring feel-good story that genuinely inspires you and makes you feel good. (I have a few complaints about its depiction of trade unions, and I just spotted a single 'aggressive negotiation' but...)

I like to watch films with the subtitles on (I'm not hard of hearing, I mean I like them anyway). I suppose it's a wierd habit, but I have lots of them. I like to read along so I can pay closer attention to the dialogue and picture the script... I dunno. But sometimes you notice oddities in the subtitles. Always there are lots of occasions where the subtitle-writer has shortened lines to make them quicker, and often random changes will be made. It must be a wierd job (I would LOVE to be a subtitle guy.) I used to have this amazing copy of 'First Blood' where almost every line in the movie was completely different to what was written down. The subtitles told an alternative, wildly stupid version of the story, and removed every single swear for some reason. Oh, and they even changed the title line! 'BUT THEY SHOT FIRST!!!'

And I'm loving the subtitles on my copy of 'October Sky'. They're very good, aside from occasionally shortening. But!
This film is set somewhere in the southern United States, but on my version the subtitles have been translated into British English. 'Math' is always pedantically changed to 'maths'... and this is the best part: 'ass' is changed to 'arse', every time! 'Imm'a kick your arse, boy!'

We need this on the DVD of every American film!

-

Makes me damn proud. We may have bad teeth, we may all be football hooligans. We may now be governed by a strange coalition of the party who closed the mines and the party who nobody voted for.

But damnit.

We will correct your spellings with our last breath.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Film review: 'Alice in Wonderland'



We seem to be doing a lot of reviews lately.

I think reviews are just fun! It's great to gloat about other people's mistakes!

So today - the new Tim Burton movie! The man who brought you 'Beetle Juice', 'Edward Scissorhands', 'Batman' and 'Ed Wood'... and then lost his mind and made 'Planet of the Apes' (the remake), 'Corpse Bride' and 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' (the remake).

I should like to state publically that he did NOT direct 'The Nightmare Before Christmas', contrary to popular belief!




Here are two stanzas from the poem 'Jabberwocky' from Through the Looking Glass.


One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

He left it dead, and with its head

He went galumphing back

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"

He chortled in his joy


I love that poem! And I rather like Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. And I like the Disney certoon, too! Now there is a live action/CGI sequel / remake, by Tim Burton.
Believe it or not I went into the new movie wanting to like it - I'd heard bad reviews but the premise sounded original and exciting.


In this curious sequel to the classic stories Alice returns, 13 years later, to Underland - she misheard the name last time - only to discover a war (Well, a planned battle... I guess) between the Red and White Queens (and the three or four speaking parts each has allied to them). The war can only be won if the chosen hero Alice (the little girl who briefly visited the region twice, 13 years previous) slays the Jabberwocky in the White Queen's name (she can't slay it herself because she has a code against killing, and no-one else can do it because they don't look enough like the hero in the original illustration.)

If you remove the parts in brackets, it sounds great, right? First off, the Jabberwock was already slain, and secondly, by a man. In a poem. Why exactly is the monster now alive and well and working for the Red Queen? Why does Alice need to kill it? Why does killing it instantly end the war? Why does it speak now?


I think what annoys me the most is the way things were mis-represented... here the Cheshire cat has a name - 'Cheshire'. That just doesn't seem right. The hatter is more eccentric than 'mad', and is a sympathetic, heroic lead character. At one point he throws a hat pin like a ninja death star. At another point he dances superbly to a really modern, funky tune, spinning his head fully around like Linda Blair (by far the low point of the film.) And he looks like this:




It just... isn't the hatter. It looks a whole lot like Edward Scissorhands! But I just don't see the hatter with bright orange hair and matching eye make-up.


It's an interesting character, but he doesn't seem to fit into 'Alice in Wonderland'
! The movie isn't even particularly dark, so what on Earth is the idea of this design?




A lot of stuff is wrong here... it's as if Burton wanted to include all his favourite characters and lines, but didn't know how to fit them into his 'rebel war' plot.

It feels odd to be criticising Johnny Depp's character... although his performance is... y'know, okay... but I just can't fathom why he looks like that, or why he's a key part of a reistance movement against the Red Queen! Or why he speaks to Alice as if they were old friends. I don't remember them spending a great deal of time together, or even getting on! By the end of this movie there is a sad farewell between the two and even (unless I was imagining it) a hint of romance.


The Red Queen is also a big part of the film, but that actually seems to fit. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed the character. However, I rather suspect that the only reason she and the hatter are our main characters is that... they most closely resemble Helena Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp.


---

And the reason I included the 'Jabberwocky' passage earlier:

In the movie, the poem is taken as a prophecy about how Alice (once again... the slayer in the poem is male!!) must kill the beast, using the 'vorpal blade' and on the 'frabjous day' i.e. the day of destiny when all will be decided.

This is the best example I could find of what I said earlier: that Burton seems to have misrepresented or misunderstood his source material, so that it no longer makes sense. The term 'frabjous day' isn't the name of a calendar date - it's just a description of the day. 'Frabjous' presumably means 'fabulous' and 'joyous'. It kills me to see the lines of this perfect poem clumsily twisted to fit a disappointing movie's plot.
At one point near the end, Johnny Depp gravely announces that 'the Frabjous Day is upon us', as if it means the end of the bloody world. That's so very different to what Lewis Carrol meant by 'O frabjous day!'. And it's not some new twist on the poem - it's just a clumsy repurposing.

As for 'vorpal blade'... well, I can maaaaaybe convince myself that's the name of the sword and not a description of it. After all the word is used twice. And because of things like 'American McGee's Alice' we've already decided that 'The Vorpal Blade' is actually the name of the sword. But there is no excuse for 'the frabjous day'.

---

There were some wonderful concepts and moments in this. I love the idea of it being called 'Underland' for instance, and the battle with the Jabberwock was actually pretty exhilerating! (Even if it was flanked by completely butchered versions of the 'playing cards' and 'chess board' themes from the books.)
And I also rather like the idea of Wonderland staging an epic war and a grown-up Alice becoming its saviour and thus, learning about herself and gaining strength. It was kind of like 'Labyrinth'! And man, I love 'Labyrinth'!

And with a premise like that, this movie could have been fantastic. It just annoyed me how so many old characters, lines and even plot devices from the original books were just re-used... poorly. With orange eye make-up.

And I know it's Tim Burton, but I really thought there was too much CGI in this movie. Alice and Anne Hathaway were the only things in the movie that didn't look like cartoon characters.


What else can I whine about? The acting was mostly drab - some lines were very obviously given the wrong emphasis. Johnny Depp kept showing off his Scottish accent for no aparent reason. The scenes before Alice re-discovered Wonderland were very, very cliched, over the top and lazy. What the hell was that Hamish fella doing with his face? I wanted to take the actor to one side and slap him. Matt Lucas was very annoying.

Oh! And there were a whole lot of 'Aggressive Negotiations' - that irritating Hollywood tradition of having lines from earlier return later in the film with greater significance. Cheap as it is, I don't mind one or two of these in a film, but this one was taking it too far. 'Avatar' has tons of that as well, by the way.

Throughout I had to keep reassuring myself by saying, 'It's a kids' movie. Kids will love that bit. I'm not
the intended audience'. And despite my very negative attitude here, the movie was okay. But with a little tweaking - a more cohesive, fresh plot, less green-screen, maybe even an original title (Return to Wonderland? Alice in Underland?) - this one could have been so good!

5/10



I also saw 'I Love You Phillip Morris', and it was great!

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Sequels, Remakes, Reimaginings and Adaptations


And reboots



The other day when I saw the latest "Harry Potter" flick there was an advert for a new film and it blew my mind - I simultaneously loved and hated it. It's just called Sherlock Holmes. The movie looks like a LOT of fun... but.... watch it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQbmFAE5WI

Now I don't know very much about Sherlock Holmes. I've seen and enjoyed a couple of films with Peter Cushing (You may fire when ready) or Christopher Lee (Qui-Gon was once my apprentice or something) but I've never gotten around to reading any of the stories. They're on my list.

But I think I know enough about Holmes to find this trailer terrifying. In it, Robert Downey Jr plays Holmes as a wisecracking, irresponsible, musclular playboy manchil..... Iron Man. He plays him as frickin' Iron Man. Now I love Iron Man, but I don't want every fictional character to just become Iron Man!

I know Holmes knew how to fight and I know he was eccentric. But come on!

Also I love the part where the genuinely English, relatively unknown actor says to Downey, "This may be a hobby to you but I do this for a living."

--

I'm looking at the top five movies at the box office on Rotten Tomatoes. I was hoping there would be a majority of remakes and sequels so I could look clever on the blog here.

1) Harry Potter and the Oh My God Ron is Totally In Love With Hermoine Oh My God
(fifth sequel and adaptation)
2) Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
(second sequel)
(The 'dawn' of the dnosaurs? During the Ice Age? What?)
3) Bruno
(You know it counts as a sequel)
4) The Hangover
(Completely original)
5) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
(Sequel to a remake)

Right now Tim Burton is finishing up Alice In Wonderland. (Second adaptation.) The biggest and most successful franchise now is Batman (reboot of a remake of a remake of an adaptation). They've now run out of Marvel Superheroes to make movie reboots of, but DC are yet to get around to Wonder Woman (I guess because no-one in Hollywood looks like her) and the Flash (because the Flash sucks).

--

I just wrote 'why?' and deleted it - I guess they do this because they make more money than when they make films that tell an independent, singular story with characters unique to it and created for it. Or maybe it's too much work. Maybe in Hollywood they just sit around with twenty or thirty people in suits and trainers around a huge, solid gold desk and they drink coca-cola and say, "You know what I like? Sherlock Holmes. Dude was badass. Let's make a movie about that."

Meanwhile, around the globe, millions of talented writers with things to say and facinating new concepts and characters just waiting for someone to read about them continue to eat cans of sweetcorn for lunch to save money (meeeeeeeeee).