Despite it being slagged off as an epic folly, I'm rather fond of the 1984 David Lynch adaptation of Frank Herbert's Dune, even though a lot of the criticism is true. Yes it has some shoddy effects work, despite it having a budget of $40 million (on of the biggest spends of all time in 1984 money), yes the story seems crammed and rushed (having to condense the huge novel into just over 2 hours and yes, it is a pretentious load of twaddle with little emotional depth.
But, by Zeus, does it look good. The lavish, intricate set designs are perhaps the best committed to film, the model work rich, detailed and original and Bob Ringwoods costume design a brilliant blending of far future sci-fi and medieval opulence. The casting is inspired from Freddie Jones, Jurgan Prochnow, sultry Francesca Annis, mad Brad Dourif, cackling Kennetyh MacMillan, theatrical Patrick Stewart, coniving Dean Stockwell and refined Max Von Sydow. Only Sean Young and Sting let the side down by doing their tree impressions. Kyle MacLachlan impresses as the Duke's son turn messiah in what is another reworking of the classic hero myth.
Much of the book's ultra-futuristic language survived the adaptation (Bene Gesserit / The art of canly) as does a lot of the subtext about religion, oil, politics and other sociological issues making Dune a film that's never dull. It might be a bit full of itself for a mass audience, and a bit ponderous and talky for a modern crowd, but I still prefer this version over the 2000 mini series (and that's even with Toto's corny, guitar laden score!)
I was really pleased back in 1998 when it was announced that the Michael Crichton novel Sphere was being filmed as it's my favorite of his large catalogue of science fiction stories. In films Crichton had been a player since the 70's (Westworld / Coma) and 80's (Looker / Runaway) but it wasn't until 1993's Jurassic Park that the rights to his work were heavily in demand. Sphere was greenlit on the back of hits like The Lost World, Disclosure, Twister, Rising Sun, Congo and of course the long running TV series E.R. but it ranks alongside Timeline and The 13th Warrior as adaptations that don't quite work.
I like Sphere as it's a very hard sci-fi story. It all takes place within a high tech research station at the bottom of the ocean and less interesting topics like biology and family are replaced by maths, astrophysics and smart scientists talking smart things. No namby pamby, tree hugging crap here. It's also a great mystery which is gradually unwrapped like the layers of an onion; just as you think you've got a grasp of what's going on a revelation makes you reassess. I also love the way that a topic like magic is juxtaposed through the eyes and experience of scientists, much like Carpenter Did with Prince Of Darkness a decade earlier.
The cast are top of the line with Dustin Hoffman Sam Jackson and Sharon Stone getting great support from Liev Schrieber and Peter Coyote...all argumentative and slightly arrogant ensuring the group interactions are never dull. The effects are pretty good, the score evokes the feeling of a classic monster movie and the photography and set design as as good as you'd expect from the likes of masters Adan Greenberg and Norman Reynolds respectively. If there's a weak link it's director Barry 'Rain Man' Levinson who doesn't successfully translate the scientific concepts cinematically, or structure the story in a way that makes the revelations more astounding.
A solid movie that you can't help but thing could be better with a different man at the helm.
Quite often, completely separate creative entities in Hollywood will suddenly decide to develop stories revolving around the same subject matter...all at the same time. In most cases the least advanced of the competing movies will wither away and die leaving the fastest film to begin shooting all alone to get a cinema release (as happened the Alexander The Great scripts a few years ago). In some cases the studios move forward with competing projects like the Robin Hood films, body-swap pictures and deep sea monster movies at the end of the 80's. In 2000, the planet Mars was all the rage and three projects raced to the screen to capture audiences imaginations, including Brian De Palma's Mission To Mars and John Carpenter's Ghost's Of Mars. In the end it was the least likely of the three, Antony Hoffman's Red Planet which arguably was the best film.
While Red Planet has the lofty framework of interplanetary colonisation, it's basically a dumbed down action film, hardly surprising when it comes from the writer of Hard Target, Barb Wire and Navy Seals. Take one Mars mission, add everything that could go wrong including solar flares, lack of oxygen, a paranoid killer, a lethal malfunctioning robot, killer alien bugs and a good ol' fashioned ticking clock and you've got the basis for bullshit in spacesuits.
The small cast (Terrance Stamp, Tom Sizemore, Carrie Anne-Moss, Benjamin Bratt) are strong, apart from Val Kilmer in the lead who's practically comatose, the photography and production design high-tech and stunning and the effects middling...which can be said of the direction too. A great looking film that's about as empty as the vacuum the red planet inhabits.
In 1986 there were two competing movies that featured unsuspecting American heroes becoming embroiled in the world of Chinese black magic and mysticism. One was John Carpenter's Big Trouble in Little China which flopped dramatically upon it's release, while the other The Golden Child starring Eddie Murphy (who could do no wrong at the box office at the time) made stacks of cash. At the time I agreed with the masses.
It's easy to see why. Director Michael Richie merged the popular, wisecracking Eddie Murphy person and transplanted it into a adventure quest, with romance, special effects, action and culture clash comedy. It's light, breezy, fun and amusing and exactly the sort of thing a mass audience will fall for if it stars the biggest movie star in the world.
Amongst its shortcomings are a cheap visual look, some static direction, some rough effects (let's not forget ILM had a complacent rough spot from '86 to '89), a wooden leading lady in Charlotte Lewis (but, dear lord, is she attractive)and a story that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But this is a film which is a star vehicle for Eddie Murphy, and no matter what you say about the guy...he's a damn funny man when embracing his cheeky, forthright youth persona. The ad-libs, the one-liners, and the double act routine with straight man (and suave villain) Charles Dance are hilarious.
Still, despite the laughs, after a few months I wound up deciphering the appeal of John Carpenter films and getting seduced by the offbeat wit of Big Trouble's script, characters, sound and look. And I've never looked back.
There are a handful of big blockbuster films that, technically, I should like...but don't. When I technically, I mean just that. When it comes to $100 summer blockbusters, I don't mind saying that I can turn my brain off and admire a film simply for it's visual effects, epic locations and action sequences. That's why I feel I ought to be showing a little bit of love towards Van Helsing, Godzilla, Licence To Kill, Pearl Harbour and Dick Tracy....but I don't. I hate them. Same can be said of Stephen Sommer's megahit The Mummy. I ought to like it for lavishly shot desert locations, inventive action and tongue in cheek characters. But The Mummy just bores the shit out of me every time I try and watch it.
Still, I went to see The Mummy Returns two years later never the less, and was pleasantly surprised when I came out on a high. The Mummy movies will never reach the level of wit, excitement and sophistication that the Indiana Jones movies attained, but the sequel was something that definitely but a big grin on my face. I think it helped that everything is bigger and better in the follow up like the action sequences (the London bus chase is superb), the score (who'd have though Alan Silvestri could out-composed Jerry Goldsmith), the silly gags, the family at stake, the globetrotting locals, the glimpses into the past and the mesmerising girl fights between the lovely Rachel Weisz and the exotic Patricia Velasquez.
It's all very silly (zombie Pygmy warriors!) and Sommers penchant for cartoony special effects gets even worse here (tacky dog-headed warriors / the Scorpion King's plastic face) but at least this instalment has some real, genuine energy behind it that allows me to give a monkeys.
There's not many movies than can admit to having a truly great, exhilarating car chase. Bullitt, The French Connection, Mad Max 2, The Bourne Supremacy (and a handful more)...there's not many, but John Frankenheimer's 1998 thriller Ronin can proudly claim three, through the towns, cities and countryside of France. Great choreography with the vehicles, a great mix of mastershots to establish geography of the chases, close ups of the cars tearing through narrow streets at 100mph and some classic ,old fashioned, brutal stuntwork means that Ronin stands high above most thrillers...and that's before you introduce little things like story and characters.
Ronin follows a small, highly trained team of independent contractors who are hired to obtain a mysterious briefcase for their Irish employers. Like Pulp Fiction, the content of the case is unimportant, as the film focuses on the code of conduct, values and friendships in the intelligence community...even for those working outside of government authority. Despite it having a late 60's, early 70's look and feel Ronin feels fresh thanks to the high quality of everything in it from the script, direction and the magnificent ensemble cast including an on-fire DeNiro, Jean Reno, devious Stellan Skarsgard, aloof Natasha McElhone and ruthless bastard Jonathan Pryce.
Let's not forget to praise a young Sean Bean as a jittery merc claiming to be an ex-S.A.S. operative. His nervous, laddish cry of, "Bit of raspberry jam back there!" when referring to the gunfight he's just escaped from , has now entered in legend and must be repeated in a Newcastle accent anytime Bean appears on screen in any medium. Classic.
It's hard to believe the Resident Evil film franchise has only been going 9 years now, but it was only 2002 when Paul W.S. Anderson unleashed his version of the popular video game upon an unsuspecting world. Anderson was wise to hire the kick-ass Milla Jovovich as lead mutant zombie killer Alice (and even wiser to marry the sexy minx) and the supporting ensemble are not your usual bunch of forgettable zombie fodder. You've got your James 'Solomon Kane' Purefoy, your Colin ' I wanna be the first black James Bond' Salmon and in a stunning piece of surprise casting Michelle Rodriguez as feisty, pissed off Latino bird.
Take a simple premise, add zombies, guns, martial arts, CGI mutants and lots of slow motion shots of things and people doing cool shit and you have a solid bullshit action movie. The score has lots of guitars in it, there's tons of computer graphics to provide exposition and Milla is eye candy for the boys. Considering it's shot by the same guy who directed Event Horizon, the film has a disappointingly cheap look to it, but other than that the film does exactly what it says on the tin.
The live action version of Masters Of The Universe has so much going for it, it's such a shame that there's an almost equal opposing force pulling the damn thing down. That division is never more obvious than in it's above the title casting with Dolph Ludgren as shit as Frank Langella is amazing. Dolph, as He-Man, delivers one of the most stilted, most uncomfortable leading man performance ever, practically rivaling Keanu Reeves shocking turn in Bram Stokers Dracula. Even simple lines like, "Let her go!" and "Protect yourself" are butchered by the hulking slab of Swedish oak. On the other hand a brilliant Frank Langella gleefully chews the scenery as He-Man's arch nemesis Skeletor. Every line, glance, gesture and theatrical sweeping of his cloak are perfectly judged to match the larger than life storyline (it's one of my favorite villains.)
And so it goes on. For every brilliant set like the cavernous Throne Room of Castle Greyskull there's a bunch of mediocre ones like the music shop, the scrap yard and the school hall. For every stunning bluescreen shot from Richard Edlund's newly independent effects house, there a handful of lazy, unconvincing matt paintings. For every great attempt at a costume fusing futuristic and magical, fantasy elements there a cheap leather thong or tacky leotard underneath. For every cool bit of supporting casting from Chelsea Field, Meg Foster, Robert Duncan McNeil and uber-cute Courtney Cox (teen crush material to be sure) there's the unbearable OTT over acting of Skeletor's minions and James Tolken (possibly channeling his authoritarian Top Gun and Back To The Future performances via half a kilo of cocaine). Half the film is aimed at the pre-teens with terrible culture clash humour, while the other half is aimed at a more mature crowd as Cox's characters deals with the loss of her parents.
It's pretty well directed by Gary Goddard with a similar type of look and feel the Amblin Entertainment, family movies used at the same time like Back To The Future but he's constantly battling the restricted budget provided by production company, of the infamous Cannon Films. Still, the film does have one ace in the hole which is it's rousing Bill Conti score. It might not be able to cover all of Master's faults, but it gives the movie a grand, epic and sweeping feel that makes the mediocre feel massive.
If you're willing to overlook the negatives, there's much to enjoy in the positives.
THE FINAL FRONTIER - Spacehunter: Adventures In The Forbidden Zone
Poor Columbia Pictures, when the science fiction boom kicked off in the late 70's and early 80's, they were never able to generate a blockbuster adventure film franchise of their own. Sure, with Spielberg's Close Encounters Of The Third Kind they helped kick off the public's fascination with outer space (along with Star Wars), but they never managed to produce a sweeping fantasy adventure or hardcore sci-fi in the 7 to 8 years thar genre remained popular. They finally got round to trying with Krull in 1983, but by that time space opera was getting over-familiar.
They had another go the same year with Spacehunter: Adventures In The Forbidden Zone. To help it seem fresher Columbia employed a few gimmicks. Firstly, they mixed the trapping of space opera with laser guns, spaceships and a Han Solo styled bounty hunter called Wolff (played by the gruff Peter Strauss) and they set it in a Mad Max, post-apocalypse world. So far so good. They then shot it in 3D (a real gimmick at the time), added teen favorite Molly 'Sixteen Candles' Ringwald as a sidekick for youth appeal and had it produced by Ivan 'Meatballs' Reitman so there was a lightness of touch to balance out the ragged, downbeat visuals.
In terms of capturing an audience, it didn't really work as Spacehunter just about clawed it's meagre budget back, but the film itself is still an disposable piece of fun. It's basically a western at heart with the bounty hunter travelling through Native American territory with a tracker and a Marshall to rescue three kidnapped rich girls....although in reality, it's a series of encounters with weird inhabitants until they get to the bad guy's township. The argumentative banter between the three leads, Strauss, Ringwald and a pre-Ghostbusters Ernie Hudson keep things lively, Michael Ironside makes a fantastic villain as the sleazy cyborg Overdog and the production design has some genuinely cool sets and vehicles.
Despite the lackluster direction by Lamont Johnson, this is still an enjoyable diversion when you don't want to concentrate on a story all that hard.
Feel good movies are a difficult thing to get right. Too much schmaltz and sentimentality and the film feels too manipulative and false to make a genuine emotional connection (like Pay It Forward). Too cold and distant and the same thing happens; no magic (Forrest Gump). But if the director and writer can pitch the tone of the project in just the right way the results can be as powerful as anything put on film. There's a handful of movies that I think got this tiny sub-genre absolutely right and that includes 1989's Field Of Dreams.
Adapted from the novel Shoeless Joe by W Kinsella, it's a fable about an inexperienced Iowa farmer who hears a mysterious voice out in his corn fields which simply says, "If you build it, he will come." After the voice pays him several more visits, Ray (played by Kevin Costner) interprets the voice to mean, that if he builds a baseball field, the ghost of disgraced baseball player Shoeless Joe Jackson will appear. Not wanting to become his passionless, unimaginative father whom he did not respect, Ray builds the field over his major crop, putting his farm and his family's economic future at risk.
Writer/director Phil Alden Robinson's script is perfect, as is his finely judged direction which is warm, humorous and spine-tinglingly haunting from first to final frame. Kevin Costner, in the age before he started playing moody anti-heroes in Wyatt Earp and Waterworld, is perfectly cast as Ray, a likable everyman character who's easy to identify with since he's riddled with self doubt, humanity and a strong, inner conviction. His wife Annie, as played by the spunky Amy Madigan is adorable, playing her as a supporting, yet balanced voice of reason, rather than a nagging partner. Timothy Busfield perfectly pitches his role between caring brother (of Madigan) and villainous banker threatening to take the farm away. And Ray Liotta, as the ghostly Shoeless Joe Jackson, pitches his portrayal as someone whom you never, ever know whether he was innocent or guilty of the crimes against baseball he was accused of.
Burt Lancaster and James Earl Jones contribute stand out performances, delivering two of the most haunting, goose bump inducing speeches of the film. Jones's in particular, at the film's climactic moment, "People will come Ray", is one of my favorite moments in movies, being a powerful and moving tribute to the power of hope, optimism and imagination. Indeed, the whole end sequence as Ray is forced to consider selling the farm, save his choking daughter and say goodbye to Jones's Terrance Mann character is stunningly structured, dove-tailing the character arcs and thematic threads into scenes that possess a dreamlike quality.
Although it has fantasy elements like ghosts, time travel and mysterious voices all of that is completely underplayed leaving a down to earth, contemporary fable like It's a Wonderful Life (which is referenced early in the film). Field Of Dreams isn't a baseball film either, even though it has baseball in it. Here baseball represents a constant throughout the ages. When people talk about baseball, they're really referring to everything that's best in life, whether that's a place, a family or the values you hold dear. And the religious factor is (thankfully) completely ignored too, leaving an undefined spirituality which opens the doors for atheists ans agnostics to delve into the 'what if' fantasy aspects of the story.
The feelgood factor not only comes from the story but from the subtext as well. On the surface it's about a son wanting to reconnect with his father, having regretted not doing so while his dad was still alive. And this journey, as established in the opening montage about the history of the Kinsella family and baseballs part in that, right through to the moving conclusion that forms the spine of the film. Underneath that is a film that explored the possibility of second chances, of taking advantage of missed opportunities and of finding the courage and passion to overcome your fears and embrace your dreams. In the film these ideals are played out by Costner, Jones and Lancaster as it explores how the choices and the sacrifices we make define us and how selflessness can change the world, giving it's own reward. In the end the film suggests that if you embrace all that's good in life and embrace your passion in life then heaven can be a place on Earth. It's a sentimental concept, but one that's handled with subtlety and sensitivity.
On a technical level John Lindley's photography is warm and inviting, James Horner's score restrained and powerful (when it needs to be) and ILM's effects work unobtrusive.
Finally, the final shot of the film is my favorite ever, for me besting E.T, Raiders, 2001 and the recent Inception. As the shot starts the film already has us exactly where it wants us wrapped up in the cathartic reunion of Ray and his Dad, represented by the powerful symbolism of them playing catch. But as the camera rises high above the baseball diamond we see the highway jammed bumper to bumper heading towards the farm. 'People will come' it's predicted and the story's final surprise is saved and sprung on us in the final few seconds. People will come indeed. It's like getting smashed in the family jewels by an enraged gorilla holding a cricket bat nail to a breeze block. Like the rest of the film, it's perfect end to a perfect story. And I don't even like baseball.
Considering Total Recall was in development hell for over 15 years before it's release in 1990, it's amazing that the film became the 5th biggest moneymaker of that year. The film rights of Philip K Dick's short story were purchased in 1974 by Alien writer Ronald Shusett before being developed through the 1980's by directors like David Cronenberg, Bruce Beresford and Richard Rush. Coming off the back of RoboCop, Paul Veroevan was wisely tapped to thanks to his ability to balance commercial, non-stop action, with intellectual science fiction, all wrapped up in a knowing, larger than life style.
It's a good call too as I not sure there's any other director that could balance a Schwarzenegger starring action vehicle with relentless, huge scale pyrotechnics, a bullshit, wise cracking sensibility (and proud of it) along with some philosophical musings about nature of the human soul, whether memories define who you are, and about the definition of 'reality' itself. It's pretty deep stuff, but Verhoevan cleverly limits these deliberations to a few short scenes at the start, middle and end of the film so it doesn't get in the way of the chases, fighting and ultra-violence.
It's hard to see how the Earthbound set remake coming in 2012 can come anywhere close to matching the Mars set iconography of Arnie's movie. From the red landscapes, the Venusville mutants (including the three breasted Lycia Naff...awesome!), the Johnny-Cabs, Quato, the Pyramid Mine, and Rob Bottin's eye bulging depressurisation scenes. It's got two great villains in Ronny Cox and Michael Ironside, memorable one-liners ("What have you been feeding this thing?" "Blonds!"), impressive Oscar winning effects (Arnie's female disguise), a complex spy plot with double crosses and secret identities and two gorgeous babes with Rachel Ticotin and Sharon Stone. Stone in particular shines here, launching her movies career properly. It's also one of the first times in a major movie where two women have a proper, full on scrap...no pulling hair and nail scratching here.
A deceptively bullshit action movie with a lot more going on under the surface, it's surprising Total Recall hasn't been used as a template more often for studios wishing to adapt tricky sci-fi material to the big screen. Oh, and then you realise it has with Paycheck. Never mind.
Raiders Of The Lost Ark is one of those movies that constantly vies for the prestigious position of 'greatest film of all time', along with a small handful of other stunning films. It's certainly director Spielberg's best movie and ranks alongside The Empire Strikes Back as the best thing George Lucas has produced. The first time I saw it was on VHS when I was 13, as we'd rented it for the weekend. My parents had gone out for the night and my brother and I were under strict instructions not to watch Raiders as my parents wanted to see it too...and we'd all sit down as a family and experience the hit movie together. Of course my brother and I were compelled to peak. Just the opening 10 minutes we promised ourselves...but considering the addictive nature of the story...we just couldn't stop watching. Raiders still has that power today as, once it's started, you can't take your eyes off the screen.
Raiders is inspired, like Star Wars before it, from the Republic serials of the 1930's and 40's having cliffhanger conclusions to the majority of it's scenes that prompt the audience to wonder how Indy and Marion will 'get out of that'. It's also a World War II (even though it's set in the mid-1930s), men-on-a-mission movie with a clear military objective laid out in the doom laden exposition scene at the beginning of the film. The heroes must obtain the super weapon (of God himself, it would seem) with the fate of the world at stake (the stakes are higher in Raiders than any of the sequels). Finally, and to my constant delight, it's a caper movie where something must be recovered from those that already possess it; the heroes have to execute the heist, stealing the artifact from underneath the villain's noses and get away, all while 'making it up as they go' when things don't go to plan.
As with all the Indy movies, the South American opening sequence sets up what to expect from the movie. Indiana Jones himself is established in the very first shot as the silhouette of Harrison Ford's fedora donned hero walks into frame. Indy's profession of archeology is revealed, along with his side-occupation of grave-robbing, as well as the cliffhanger nature of the narrative. In the opening sequence alone Indy must escape from traitorous guides (twice), tarantulas, a bottomless chasm (twice), poison darts, a disintegrating temple, impenetrable stone doors, bone crushing boulders, his arch nemesis and a tribe of poison dart gobbing natives. Hows that for cliffhangers?
The opening also establishes Belloq, a rival archaeologist to Indy that will plague his progress when the story starts good and proper. The relationship between Indy and Belloq is an interesting one that goes beyond hero and villain. They're rivals...not only in archeology with both man after the same objects (the Gold Idol, the Ark)...but rivals in women as Belloq clearly desires Marion, Indy's ex-flame, for himself. It's made all the more interesting that Indy is clearly the more successful of the two, always retrieving the artifact first and winning the heart of the girl. Belloq, the less capable rival consumed with jealousy, has to cheat, bully and steal things away from Indy in order to succeed. Of course, when he does finally gets what he wants, his greed leads to his demise, but it's the battle of wits between the two that leads to a lot of the suspense being generated.
As with all masterpiece movies, every single scene, whether its centred around dialogue, suspense or action, is memorable...essential to the story and perfectly constructed in its own right. Each scene stands brilliantly on its own, away from the rest of the movie having cleasrly defined beginnings, middles and endings. There's no better examples of that than in two of my favorite sequences in all moviekind...scenes that all other movies should look up and worship:-
1/ The first of these is the dialogue free Map Room sequence which is structured with Indy breaking into the Map Room, preparing the Staff Of Ra, and finally rising to a powerful conclusion as the beam of light shows the location of the Ark (*all to John Williams stunning Ark theme).
2/ The second is what must surely qualifies as THE greatest action sequence in cinema; the desert chase, as Indy single handedly attempts to repossess the Ark from a convoy of armed Nazis. The sequence has got a clearly defined set-up which establishes the location of the Ark, the order of the vehicles, and which charts Indy's approach to the convoy. The middle section has Indy take control of the truck carrying the Ark and assert his near-dominance over the convoy while the finale has him nearly losing everything, including his life, only to bounce back with one of THE greatest stunts of all time. Recreating the old western stunt of the cowboy being dragged underneath the stagecoach, but revamping it to use a contemporary truck was a stroke of genius and is amplified not only by the fact it looks bloody, bloody dangerous but it's topped off with Indy crawling back onto the truck to triumphantly take control of it once more. Maybe someone should sit Michael Bay down one day and make him watch this.
But each other sequence is memorable in it's own right from the sequence with the old man, "Belloq's staff is too long. They're digging in the wrong place!!" complete with it's own cliffhanger (bad dates), Marion's Tibetan drinking contest, the basket chase, the threat of torture with a hot poker, "Snakes! Why did it have to be snakes", Indy's smitten female students, and the romantic and humorous, "It's not the years honey, it's the mileage" all stand the test of time. Even a throw away scene like with Indy and Belloq in the bar has it's own cliffhanger, which is resolved with Sallah's kids coming to rescue Indy, is much stronger than it has any right to be. Individual moments too remain iconic like the coat hanger gag (improved upon from Spielberg's shoddy 1941), the sword swirling arab, Indy versus the cobra, Sallah singing Gilbert and Sullivan and the final warehouse scene. All demonstrations of Spielberg's genius.
For me it's the serious, adult tone which sets this apart and above from the sequels. Deepite lots of humour, this is treated as a thriller first and foremost not pandering to a family audience as Temple Of Doom and Last Crusade did. It's only in the fun basket chase through the streets of Cairo that Raiders adopts a sillier attitude, but it's thankfully blesses with it's tongue ending up firmly in it's cheek. It helps to have the best cinematography of the series having the rich colours you'd expect in a David Lean movie but having the strong contrast that Last Crusade lacked. It's got the best score too, being the best of composer John Williams long and illustrious career...alongside The Empire Strike Back, I'd argue. And ILM's groundbreaking effects, especially the head exploding, ghost filled climax.
It's quite a ride which ends up making Raiders one of my top 5 movies of all time. It's certainly Spielberg's best, with Jaws coming a close second. It has everything I could want in a movie and it keeps getting better every time I see it. What could be better than that?
In the late 70's and early 80's the outer space genre was HUGE. That's thanks to Star Wars, and other hits like Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Close Encounters and Alien. So studios and producers mined the properties they had to create new sci-fi stuff to satisfy the audiences appetites. The past was plundered with Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon and The Thing all retooled for the modern ages and other genre stories were reimagined to become science fiction films. The disaster movie was reborn as Meteor, the Bond movie was reborn in Moonraker and the western The Magnificent Seven was reborn as Battle Beyond The Stars. Another western that got the outer space remake treatment was High Noon in 1981's Outland.
The events of the classic western are transferred to Io, one of Jupiter's moons, where humanity has placed a mining township. When the new Security Marshall uncovers widespread corporate corruption and drug abuse which is claiming the lives of the miners, Connery has to take on the hired guns sent to kill him, arriving on the next shuttle (which replaced the western's train).
Directed with his usual style by Peter (2010) Hyams, it's a slow-burn, adult thriller with some great production design, solid effects (from the team that brought you Alien) and Stephen Goldblatt's slick photography and a low key Goldsmith score. The film is arguably a little too 'low-key' for it's own good with little in the way of exhilarating action scenes or grand emotional outbursts; it's tough guys doin' tough things. But the casting of Connery is the films best asset; he's got the physicality, screen presence and attitude that makes you believe that he'll beat the odds and survive, yet he displays a vulnerability that makes you think that even James Bond himself could lose this fight.
I like this more and more every time I see it, but it's unfortunately largely dismissed as it was a huge flop on it's original release. Shame.
Even geniuses can get it wrong. Several years after the release of the Raiders prequel Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom, its director Steven Spielberg publicly stated that he wasn't happy with the film and the best thing about it was that he met his wife on it. Well, I'm very sorry Mr. S, but Temple Of Doom is not only a classic but ranks up there with your very, very best work.
When Raiders was released the George Lucas ans Spielberg collaboration had produced one of the most popular and most lucrative hits in cinema history. They could have played it safe and done a Jaws 2 or Ghostbusters 2 and replayed the same formula again. But no. Whether it was the ambition of youth or the confidence only a stratosphere grossing blockbuster can give you, Lucas and Spielberg grew balls. Huge, massive balls. Despite what he says, Spielberg knew exactly what sort of film he was making and it's stated, right up front at the beginning of the film. Rather than start his film with a familiar archeology sequence with Indy exploring a tomb, or the intrepid adventurer engaging in fisticuffs with some conniving Nazi...he starts it with a musical number. If that's not enough it's sung, for the most part, in Chinese! It's not an accident that song is "Anything Goes" because it's the mission statement of Temple Of Doom.
Even in the opening nightclub sequence Spielberg is testing his audience with a change of look (it's much more colourful and glossy than Raiders), a change of tone (as seen in the slapstick shoot 'em up as Indy fights and searches for the vile of antidote) and a nod and a wink to the competing Bond franchise as Indy dresses up in a tux. Temple sticks to the structure set up by Raiders, which in turn was inspired by the 30's series on which it was based, by opening with an action sequence which suggest Indy is finishing off one epic adventure before starting another. Like Raiders, it also allows for important new cast members to be inroduced; in this case Willie Scott and Short Round.
Both Short Round and Willie are genius creations. Shorty might be a little child, and Indy frequently refers to him as "Kid", but other than that he's treated as an adult, whether it's gambling, fighting, watching innocents get brutally sacrificed or smutty conversations with Indy about Willie. He's just as much a capable sidekick to Indy in Temple as Sallah was to him in Raiders. Spielberg, and his (now) wife Kate Capshaw who played nightclub singer Willie have both expressed that they think Willie is an unrealistic and unflattering portrayal of a modern woman. They're both completely wrong and their original instinct were right on the money. Willie is shallow, vain, ignorant and greedy and the type of woman she represents seems to grow in numbers, in the western world, more every year. Capshaw's sassy portrayal is also endearing, hilarious and a great change from the headstrong fighter that Marion Ravenwood was. The more she screams the more entertained I am.
Tonally Temple Of Doom is much less realistic feeling, as Raiders was, and much more 'extreme' and comic book...with the title character and Harrison Ford's consistent performance remaining the constant across all the movies, whatever the dramatic style they might be. In one direction the humour is much, much more broader, possibly as an attempt by Spielberg to inject some mirth into a very dark script. From Willie's non-stop screaming in the campfire sequence, the twisted humour of the banquet scene with its chilled monkey brains and bug appetisers to the witty sparring and flirting of Willie and Indy's exchanges...it's all laugh out loud stuff. At the other end of the scale you have quite a disturbing story including the intensity of burning innocents in lava pits and ripping their still beating hearts out, frenzied tribal rituals, black magic, possession, child slavery and voodoo. In many respects Temple ventures firmly on to horror film territory; giant bats, drinking blood from human skulls and torture..it's pretty strong for the young 'uns. Compared with Raiders, this is pretty intense stuff and Lucas and company deserve a huge pat on the back for pursuing that extreme tone so aggressively.
The story structure takes a page from James Cameron's book (in the same year Cameron was inventing his book with The Terminator) by placing a couple of grand action sequences at the front of the film, a couple of minor scuffles in the central act and a full half hour of non-stop, uninterrupted action at the end to make the audience feel exhausted and that they got their money's worth. Like The Empire Strikes Back, this isn't a movie that heads towards a huge, explosive climax...it's about escaping from a superior force alive as Indy frees the slave children and flees the mines. The action sequences are some of Spielberg's career bests from the spike room trap, the rope bridge, the utterly original mine car sequence and the brilliant conveyor belt brawl (which was made up, on set, one shot at a time by the director).
The production itself is magnificent. The Indian and Chinese locals give Temple a exotic, primitive and other worldly vibe that sets it aside from its predecessor. John Williams composes several great new themes to add to the Raiders March which is gleefully blasted by an 80 piece orchestra over ever exhilarating action scene. Elliott Scott's production designs are striking, especially the temple itself and the adjoining underground mine which are vast, detailed, multi-leveled monstrosities and amongst my favorite set to ever appear in a movie.
It's also interesting to see Indy's journey in Temple Of Doom. In Raiders his story arc was one of grave robber to true believer and in Temple it's one of selfish thief (working for diamonds, fortune and glory) to folk hero and rescuer of children. It might be the least liked of the series (well, until Kingdom came along) but it's undoubtedly one of the bravest and boldest family adventure films ever created. It's creativity and originally is astonishing and not even the Indy sequels or Mummy films have since come up with anything as edgy. Balls indeed.
Cut from the same cloth as the period set, family action adventure film as the Indiana Jones movies, The Rocketeer is a good old fashioned blast. It has a good old fashioned score (one of James Horner';s finest), a gorgeous Amblin entertainment look helped by Johnson's Spielberg inspired direction, a great, old fashioned character-based story with well structured action sequences to keep the audience dazzled, and a lively cast that includes Alan Arkin's miracle engineer, Paul Sorvino's gangster and Timothy Dalton's swashbuckling actor (who's clearly having a blast, cursing "bloody" every ten minutes, as he tends to do). Plus you've got Jennifer Connolly, in the pre-serious stage of her career where here babyfaced, youthful charm and smouldering looks, off-the-scale cuteness and barely contained breasts squeezed into a ball gown thrilled an entire generation of boys (and men).
ILM's flying man effects are top notch (their Zeppelin stuff is a lot better than their Last Crusade efforts), the action fun and chocked full of humour, the characters appealing and Bill Campbell's over-eager and naive leading man a different kind of hero. I also like the way it weaves historical events (the Hollywood movie scene, Howard Hughes, Nazis) into the narrative. Based on Dave Steven's graphic novel, The Rocketeer often comes across as a Marvel superhero story with the everyday, bloke next door character discovering his new abilities before utilising them to fight a greater evil but it's retro setting and style may have been off putting to those being awe struck on Terminator 2 the very same summer of 1991, for it to find a huge audience.
The Rocketeer is a film summed up by it's poster; a fun, beautifuly produced blast from the past served up with all the expertise of 1991 cutting-edge cinema. An under-rated and overlooked movie that deserves another look.
Rango is a little bit like Inception in that it's a miracle it ever got made at a blockbuster level by a major studio. Both films are targeted at a wide commercial audience, have identifiable characters and are set in familiar genres (Inception is a heist movie, Rango is a western), but it's what's going on under the surface and how that's communicated that makes them riskier propositions. No matter how much either movie tries to entertain us they're both art house movies at the end of the day, and considering Rango is about a cute animated lizard voiced by megastar Johnny Depp aimed at Mom, Pop and the kiddies, it's staggering the studio green lit a such an unusual proposition. Perhaps they didn't realise what they'd be getting themselves into?
On the surface Rango is about a domesticated Chameleon who gets separated from his owners on a remote desert road. He eventually stumbles into the town of dirt where he unwittingly becomes their sheriff after defeating a local predator. Then the water starts to dry up...
However, what it's really about is a guy searching for his identity. Generally it explores how individuals define themselves by narratives whether it's the stories that we tell ourselves from our own imagination, stories that we allow other people to tell about us or stories that we see around us like movies. In fact Rango is very much a film about films. It's no coincidence that the film should use the western template as a vehicle for it's story as it's perhaps the most clearly defined of any movie genre. It uses the western iconography, like that of a mystic Clint Eastwood-like figure who embodies 'the spirit of the west' to communicate a basic, spiritual worldview to the title character. Rango references other movies like Chinatown and Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas, subtly deploys pieces of music used in other films (like the haunting Danny Elfman melody from The Kingdom)and in some surreal sequences almost addresses the audience directly.
The humour is distinctly odd, the language sophisticated and certainly not leveled at your typical suburban brat, the depiction of desert life frank and in-your-face and the story evenly paced and 'talky'. And that's all very, very good from an adults point of view but there's a risk you'll be alienating children (and dumb people) who aren't taken in by the daft talking animal routine.
If there's a chink in it's armour it's that Rango doesn't have the emotional resonance that a Pixar film might, but it more than makes up for it in it's depth, sharply timed, oddball jokes, photo real animation and epically staged action. Not everybody will understand all of Rango and not everybody will be entertained by all of it, but there's enough broadly appealing stuff to make this worth virtually everybodies time.
To many Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade is what represents the perfect Indy movie being action packed, light in tone and a romp from start to finish. But to me it's always been the weakest instalment...and yes, that even includes Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Now I'm not say Last Crusade is a bad film...far from it...but in comparison to Raiders Of The Lost Ark and Temple Of Doom which preceded it in the 1980's, it's something of a let down.
Why? Well virtually everything and everybody in it is doing a half arsed job. It's like everybody was bullied into doing a third Indy movie rather than be immersed in the passion and excitement that the film makers possessed on the last two films. Let's list them:-
1/ Harrison Ford. At his peak Ford was the greatest leading man in cinema. Han Solo. Legend. Indiana Jones (up until 1989)...amazing. Then Harrison gave up. He started to fall asleep on the job, and that lack of energy and enthusiasm began creeping into his work around about now.
2/ Julian Glover. Really? Is this the best they could come up with for a villain? The same crap corporate dullard that faced off against Moore's Bond in For Your Eyes Only. They'd have been better off promoting Michael Burn's Nazi General as the big bad for a more menacing adversary.
3/ Sallah and Brodey. After the backlash against Temple Of Doom, producer George Lucas was quick to employ sequalitus techniques and bring back trusted characters from Raiders. But rather than reincarnate John Rhys Davis and Denholm Elliot's sidekicks with the intelligence and integrity they had before, George turned them into clueless buffoons. Tragic.
4/ The story. After the unexpected choice of ritualistic Hindu sacrifice in Temple Of Doom, George Lucas played it safe with Last Crusade returning to a MacGuffin rooted once again in Judea/Christian mythology. It's like what he dis with the classic Star Wars trilogy...after taking a risk with Empire he returned to the same formula with Return Of The Jedi (start on Tatoine and end with a Death Star battle). The Indy formula no longer feels cutting edge and the whole script has a vibe of playing it safe with silly gags, comedy music themes (the German music cue is straight out of a Mel Brooks film) and a general feeling of scenes being lumped together rather than a natural progression of story.
5/ The climax. There isn't one...or not one worthy of an Indy film. While I completely agree that the 'real' ending of Last Crusade is the moment Henry and Indy resolve their quarrel, the film still needs a kick ass supernatural moment laced with spectacle, tension and excitement to send the audience out on a high. Alas, an earthquake straight out of a Disneyland ride doesn't cut the mustard.
6/ The direction and the action. Like most other things in Last Crusade, Spielberg was seemingly on auto pilot here as well. The big man doesn't seem to be trying hard enough to compose shots that thrill the audience, instead relying on too many wide, master shots that distance the audience from the action. Tonally the film is the lightest of the three, feeling much like that of a Roger Moore Bond film much of the time, sharing the same unsophisticated jokes and comical action scenes which undermine the reality and tension of the escapes and battles. The dialogue scenes too, especially the big exposition dump in Donovan's office is static and uninvolving.
7/ Everything else. John Williams, while still composing some of the best themes in movie history, had lost his edge by this point and the music is less bombastic and urgent than before (he also relegate the Indy theme throughout most of the film...a huge mistake). Michael Khan's action editing is too slow, Douglas Slocombe's photography is pleasant, but the flattest looking of the films and Elliot Scott's set designs are shadows of the genius he produced for Temple Of Doom.
So who comes out of this with any credit? Well Connery obvious as it's his scenes the crackle with wit and energy, Alison Doody's face deserves acclaim for being stunningly beautiful (unlike her damp, lifeless Nazi sympathiser), River Phoenix is to be congratulated for a quirky Harrison Ford impression and the Tank Chase is to be applauded as it's the only white knuckle action set piece in the entire film.
In some ways I'm glad Last Crusade had a light, frothy tone as it means that each Indy film has a unique style and identity; there's an Indy film for everybody. And that's fine, but it's gist not the tone that pushes my buttons.
If you've seen the trailer for Rubber (below) or read the synopsis you'll already know that the movie has a bat shit premise; a car tyre comes to life and goes on a killing spree. It's quite a surprise upon seeing Rubber that the aforementioned premise is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to lunacy. On the surface it's a slasher movie in the tradition of Texas Chainsaw or Halloween with a small community terrorised by an unstoppable killer while the police scramble to control the situation. And using it's absurd twist of murderer (the tyre cause it's victims to explode) it does this very well...but that's only half the movie.
Rubber is really an arthouse flick...less concerned with the plot making sense but rather to make it's audience think. The other narrative in the film concern an assembled audience who watch events unfold from afar using binoculars, as if they've gathered for street theatre or an outside movie experience. The line between what is fictional and not, what is real is not is gradually eroded that characters in the film are interacting with the audience and the audience is interacting with the plot of the film...that of the killer tyre.
Rubber is asking us how an audience interacts with a film. How much do we believe in the reality of what's going on onscreen and how far can a film push the story into absurdity before we dismiss it as unbelievable. It examines the group experience of going to see a film at a cinema or in front of the TV, the affect of advertisers and the selling of rubbish food to the audience and how viewers tend to shout at the cinema screen in an attempt to change already filmed events. And it's a parody on movies themselves mocking the killer rising from the grave and how Hollywood exploits original movies by duplicating them.
At one point in the movie a character addresses us, the audience directly, breaking the forth wall stating that in all movies, even the great ones, things happen for 'no reason'. Rubber knows this and pushes that right to the very limit. It will undoubtedly frustrate many, but it's definitely one of the smartest and most original movies you'll see all year.
Whatever happened to director Dominic Sena? Once he was the darling of uber producers Jerry Bruckheimer (with whom he made the fun Gone In 60 Seconds) and Joel Silver (with whom he made the smart and cool Swordfish). After a huge gap in the 2000's he returned to make the dreary Whiteout with Kate Beckinsalke and he's followed that up by the gloomy Season Of The Witch.
The other question is...can anybody actually predict what movie Nicholas Cage will star in next. In broad strokes we know that Cage will be drawn to quirky characters (just look as The Rock's Stanley Goodspeed) and that there are three main type of films you'll see him in; the blockbuster (National Treasure/Sorcerers Apprentice), the indie drama (Bad Lieutenant/Adaptation) and the geeky (Kick Ass/Ghost Rider/Drive Angry). Oh, and how wild will Nic's hair be?
I can't answer the first question about Sena but I do know that the energy and vibrancy that once signified his earlier work is now gone. Season, while looking great and moody, is rather pedestrian in execution.
As for Cage, his hair is about a 4 out of 5 on the wild factor and this definitely falls into the 'geek' camp of his movie choices. Cage and the gruff Ron Pearlman play Knights who have deserted the church, protesting against the atrocities they can no long carry out in God's name. They're given the opportunity to clear their names when a township ask them to transport an alleged Witch to the nearest monastery for trail. Cue spooky happenings, sword fights, wolf attacks and winged demons.
This is unremarkable Friday night popcorn entertainment that's visually convincing thanks to some great location work and some solid special effects. There's a couple of major problems though. First, the mystery as to whether the prisoner is a witch or not is redundant thanks to a cool but pointless pre-title sequence. Secondly, and most importantly, the accents are shocking. It's obvious that when the film makers discovered that Nic Cage couldn't do a convincing English accent he was told to go for a neutral, mid-Atlantic inflection. What's amazing is that the rest of the cast were asked to perform with the same accent, a perplexing fusion of American and English, no matter their origin. So one minute you've got English actors talking in an English accent, who then end their sentences with an American twang.
But don't let that stop you from watching a diverting period actioner. Get a beer from out the fridge...make that several...and settle in for the night.
When certain directors get attached to a big, high profile movie project very often there's reason to celebrate. Peter Jackson doing Lord Of The Rings, Christopher Nolan doing Batman, Zack Snyder doing Superman...these are things to get excited about. Of course, there's the reverse of that such as Michael Apted being given the directors chair. Apted is the acclaimed director of Coal Miner's Daughter and Gorillas In The Mist, but he's also responsible for a long list of duds like Extreme Measures, Blink, Enough, Enigma and the boring Bond epic The World Is Not Enough.
Wake me up when something interesting happens...that's the over riding feeling when watching the third Chronicles Of Narnia movie, Voyage Of The Dawn Treader. It's just a series of sea bound set pieces strung together by a slender plot about some sinister mist. The returning child cast are better than they've been before (perhaps that's Apted's influence as an actors director) but the remaining cast are dull including Simon Pegg's less memorable take on Mouse warrior Reepicheep (original voiced by the superior Eddie Izzard). Only new kid on the block Will Poulter, of Son Of Rambow fame, makes any impression with his strong story arc going from stroppy spoiled lad to enlightened Prince.
Several things bug about this instalment. It's noticeably shallower in terms of characterisation and action than the previous two movies and that's probably down to studio Twentieth Century Fox taking over from Disney. The effects are for the most part fine, but they have a habit of being too cluttered and messy...trying too hard to impress. Also, the Dragon design doesn't work at all and the effect itself reminds me of the recent Yogi Bear movie where the animated character doesn't blend in too well with it's surroundings.
Finally, Lian Neeson's Jesus Allegory Lion, Aslan, no long pretends to be an allegory of Christian belief, stating almost directly that he IS Jesus in our world when he's not hanging around in Narnia with a mane, which is a little creepy and uncomfortable (just as well the Pevensie siblings aren't Hindu or Muslims then...)
Not a major disappointment, I wasn't a huge fan of the first two movies anyway, but it's an obvious step down in terms of scale, story, quality and ambition.
Only director Tim Burton could have got a film like Sweeney Todd - The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street green light at a major studio. Sure the story of a vengeful barber who seeks revenge on those that killed his wife and imprisoned his daughter is quite compelling...but the fact the dead bodies end up in the pie shop downstairs is rather disturbing, the geysers of spurting blood requiring a hard R rating off-putting and the fact it's a bloody musical make the fact it was made at all a miracle.
As you'd expect from Burton it's a dark, twisted tale filled with eccentric characters, played by brilliant actors (Rickman, Bonham Carter, Spall, Baron Cohen) all topped of with another oddball performance from Depp singing as if he'd been possess by the spirit of David Bowie. As it plays here the story is fine and well told but the musical aspect falls a little flat due to songs that don't linger long in the memory. Still it's so original and bizarre it has to be commended for that.
You've got to feel sorry for the general audience members that were enticed to see Burton and Depp's latest collaboration by trailers omitting the fact that it was a full blown musical...the number of walk outs and audible groans coming from packed movie theatres back in 2007 must have been considerable. But hey, it's their loss.
Clerks is one of those legendary, self financed, shoe-string budget home movies that started careers, franchises and cultish fan bases across the world, much like Robert Rodriguez did with El Mariachi and Oren Peli achieved with Paranormal Activity. Starring a bunch of Smith's mates and shot in black and white through the night at his local neighbourhood convenience store, it's a series of sketches, observations, and conversations revolving around the two slackers who run the store from noon 'til night on one particular day.
Brian O'Halloran and Jeff Randall are perfectly cast as the constantly complaining Dante and the rebellious, apathetic Randall respectively. Through their differing opinions, and the intersecting oddballs that intersect their work day, we learn much about life, love and our place in the universe. Like most of Smith's work, it's at heart a rom com with Tarantino-esque everyday conversations, fan boy geek references (Salsa Shark) and quotable filthy humour, "My Girlfriend sucked 37 dicks!!!" "In a row???"
Scrappy and amateurish in it's production but first rate in it's script and performances, Smith would go on from this to even better work from the deeper Chasing Amy, the sidesplitting Mallrats and Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back and the thoughtful and provocative Dogma. Yep, every saga must have a beginning and this is way superior to The Phantom Menace.
Directed by Bourne writer George Nolfi and based on the story by Blade Runner's Philip K Dick, The Adjustment Bureau centres on Matt Damon's Senator and Emily Blunt's Ballerina as two souls destined NOT to be with each other. The mysterious agency of the title are empowered to ensure us humans, including the destined-for-great-things Damon and Blunt, stick to what fate has already determined will be our path by interfering as inconspicuously in our lives as they can. If you've ever lost your keys that makes you miss that important appointment...chances are it's the Adjustment Bureau.
Strip away the politics, spirituality, chase thriller and science fiction aspects from the film and what you have remaining is a straight-forward romance. Now, being a bit of a bloke I'm not one to watch romances very often and when I do it's usually because it's part of a comedy movie narrative like Zack and Miri, Clerks 2 or The 40 Year Old Virgin. Twilight would be a prime example of a romantic story played straight that I've seen recently but that's hampered by the fact that both the direction and the love lorn leads are as boring as hell's toilet seat. Bureau is so much part of the romance genre it even goes so far as to include the climactic run of the hero to win his lovers heart again...but fortunately it does so in a thrilling and unusual way.
Adjustment's romance works because of the compelling story and the star wattage of it's leads. Damon has already repeatedly demonstrated his ability as an A-list leading man, but it's Blunt who surprises here; she oozes charisma and sexuality (God I love posh totty accents), and it's her key romantic scenes with Damon, showing enormous chemistry together, that forms the sturdy foundation for the plot. If the audience doesn't root for Blunt and Damon to be together, then any obstacle placed in their way by the baddies or the screen writers would be rendered pointless... but root for them we certainly do.
It's refreshing to have a thriller that isn't overwhelmed with explosions and CGI; there's an old fashioned, unfussily staged direction to the film which enhances the drama, and there's a elegant simplicity to the look and design whether it's the Bureau's 60's Trilby hats or the timeless grandeur New York cityscape. The commendably lean script is layered with an exploration of fate versus free will and order versus chaos with the more religious aspects (God and Angels) given a more corporate reimagining. Finally, Thomas Newman, of Shawshank and American Beauty fame, delivers a haunting score which goes a long way to making the film exciting, mature in tone and emotionally absorbing.
There's nothing remotely original about Battle Los Angeles. Most mainstream reviews have it pegged as a cross between Ridley Scott's Blackhawk Down (which is the film it most closely resembles) and Roland Emmerich's Independence Day, but there's elements of District 9, Skyline and, most prominently, the story structure of Aliens. So, like Jim Cameron's classic, we have a group of soldiers sent into a populated community that's been over run by hostile aliens with the mission of extracting the population and fighting the E.Ts. There's the small child, soldier and civilian woman that form a 'family unit', there's a green commanding officer who has to make the noble sacrificee for the group with a grenade, and the race to escape the township against the ticking clock before it gets blown to smithereens.
But despite the familiar story and directing style, the cardboard characters, abysmal dialogue, corny male bonding and patriotic flag waving Battle LA is bloody entertaining. It's a premise movie...a "men on a mission movie" with a simple objective...rescue the civilians in the next three hours before we flatten the crap out of the city. Add to that the intense hand held docu-camera style of Blackhawk and Private Ryan and you have a raw, pulse pounding combat movie that drags the audience into the centre of the action. We don't care much for the scantily written characters, but we can imagine ourselves trapped behind enemy lines with the awe struck grunts and try to work out how the hell we'd get out of that situation. And sometimes that's enough for an adrenaline rush at the flicks.
It's dumb, the drama scenes are embarrassing, the humour (what little of it there is) flat, and the cast mostly forgettable (apart from Eckhart and Rodriguez). But if you're willing to accept this as a pure entertainment, bullshit action movie white knuckle rollercoaster ride then you're in for a major treat. Michael Bay would be impressed.
Yogi Bear sucks. That should be no surprise to anyone who's seen a talking animal movie over the last couple of years whether its Alvin & The Chipmunks or the night terrors inducing Furry Vengeance. Now Yogi isn't anywhere near as depressing than either of those two disasters, partly due to the nostalgic appeal of Yogi himself and his sidekick Boo Boo Bear, voiced uncannily similarly to the original vocal talent by Dan Ackroyd and Justin Timberlake. It's directed with energy and has some amusing comedic support from T.J. Jones as the inept Ranger Jones, Andrew Daly as the scheming Major and the perky Anna Faris who's criminally under used.
But this is a kids movie with no ambition to appeal to anybody over the age of six. The humour is ineffective, the special effects variable (I don't know whether it's residue from the 3D conversion process but Yogi often doesn't blend with his backgrounds) and the story a brain meltingly dull variation on the whole 'corporate bullys are taking our land and we've only one week to save it" kind of thing. Add to that lead actor Tom (Scrubs)Cavanagh who plays Ranger Smith is too subdued to carry the film.
By a long, long way Event Horizon is the best film on much maligned director Paul W.S. Anderson's resume. Perhaps the nearest he gets is AvP, but that's far from perfect, and then you're left with a choice between Death Race, Resident Evils 1 & 4, Mortal Kombat and the mutant hellspawn that is Soldier. Event Horizon works for several reasons and I find it bizarre that Anderson's not been able to tap into that creativity when working on other projects.
He's got himself a really great cast here from top to bottom, recognising that for an ensemble to work ALL the pieces must be strong actors and relatable to an audience. How Anderson got the headline talent of Laurence Fishburne and Sam Neill is any ones guess, but add in posh totty Joely Richardson, quipping Richard T Jones, the intense Jason Isaacs, mumsy Kathleen Quinlan, rookie Jack Noseworthy and legend Sean Pertwee and you have a diverse and genuinely likable crew.
It's basically a haunted house movie in space. The scares are handled well with little of that frantic editing that's cursed Anderson's later work, the photography is well balanced between Tinseltown gloss and gritty reality (with sickly greens being used to induce unease), the Spaceship interior designs amazing (with the Event Horizon herself a blend of Gothic, cathedral architecture, coffin shaped corridors and religious iconography mixed into the mise en scene.
Although not as deep as one might hope in terms of exploring the impact of the 'haunted' ship on the characters it is an intelligent exploration of faith, where that's in God or in Hell, the scares are effective and the story atmospheric. Under-rated.
Poseidon, the Wolfgang Peterson directed remake of 1972's The Poseidon Adventure, represents a lot of what's wrong with Hollywood today. It's a vast, mega budget action movie with a (mostly) B-list cast, zero characterisation with no originality in its bones whatsoever. Although it's a reimagining of the Irwin Allen produced disaster movie classic, it feels like a cynical cash-in on Titanic, then the biggest film of all time. And since that's directed to brilliant effect by the master James Cameron, Poseidon comes off as a less involving, but just as visually spectacular knock off instead.
Gene Hackman's commanding preacher is replaced by Kurt Russell's fireman come politician and Josh Lucas' loner. While I love Russell's work he's no match for Hackman's superior, more complex hero and let's just say I'm glad Hollywood stopped trying to make Josh Lucas a star. He has that youthful arrogance of a young Pierce Brosnan which makes him unappealing and cocky...something age will temper as it did in Brosnan's case. Kevin Dillon gets the antagonistic Ernest Borgnine role but gets killed off way too early to create any sustained tension...and the remainder of the cast, including the normally value-for-money Richard Dreyfuss, are forgettable disaster movie fodder.
Still, if you can rely on Wolfgang Peterson and Warner Bros' cheque book for one thing...the film sure do look good. It has a slick contemporary sheen, at least making it a different visual pallet from Titanic and some astoundingly detailed ILM effects (the Poseidon flyby of the main titles is gorgeous).
Poseidon is the Paris Hilton of blockbusters; pretty on the outside and eager to please, but with the make-up off it's very plain with absolutely nothing going on in it's tiny brain.
With Patrick Lussier's Drive Angry it seems that Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez are no longer the only ones making Grindhouse movies. When your movie begin with the hero walking away from a fireball in slow motion while an electric guitar wails victoriously, you know exactly what type of film you're gonna get; dumb, profane violent, gory, sexy, trashy fun. Yep, it's Grindhouse pure and simple...tons of nudity, tons of swearing, limbs are cut off, people are tortured and there's a cool soundtrack to accompany it all. Just wonderful.
Cage is, surprisingly, on subdued mode...but has the quiet charisma we've come to expect to pull this ludicris stuff off. William Fichtner steals the show as 'The Accountant', a smartly dressed bounty hunter from hell who's take on life on Earth is expressed with a cool detachment and an superior amusement at the antics of the mortals around him. He's one for the bad guy hall of fame. But topping Fichtner is Amber Heard as Piper, armed with the shortest shorts, the longest legs, the fiercest attitude and the cutest face in cinema during 2011. If she manages to escape these meager scream queen beginnings, and retains her looks, acting ability and attitude, we may have another Angelina on the way. Of course she's recently outed herself as "bi" or lesbian, which means Hollywood prejudice might kick in and relegate her to TV land...but here's hoping.
If you liked Planet Terror, Machete and From Dusk Til Dawn, you should like this. It may lack the sparkle of Tarantino dialogue or the sheer inventiveness od Rodriguez's' direction...but there's still 10 times the amount of fun to be had than in a Bruckheimer production of the last decade.
And lo, it came to pass on the sixth day, God created Man. On the seventh he rested, creating pop culture, to prevent boredom. And on the eighth, Man started celebrating pop culture. I am that Man...
