When it comes to the Lord Of The Rings films there is absolutely no argument as to their extraordinarily high quality. Each movie of the trilogy is working at such an amazing standard, on every single level possible including the cast, effects team, direction, set designers, composer, editors, costume designers, stunt team and the writers that to debate it would be pointless. Film making at this level for this epic type of story is unsurpassed. Period.
Then there's the debate about whether it's fair to pick out one of the three movies as the 'best' since it's all one big story anyway, and which were all filmed at the same time. That is a more valid debate to have. However, each film was designed to be shown on it's own, with it's own beginning, middle and an end, and all this a year apart from it's nearest installment, when they were released a decade ago. And so, yes, I think each film can be judged on it's own merits just in the way i can single out a sole episode of a serialised TV show like 24 or Galactica as being particularly special.
For me, the Rings movie which works best is the first, Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring, which is down to a three main reasons:-
1/ A sense of awe. Fellowship is a beautiful exercise in world building, not only from a script standpoint but from a visual perspective too. Starting with the complex prologue detailing the fall of Sauron and the journey of The One Ring into the hands of Bilbo Baggins, to the explanation of Hobbits, the ethereal nature of elves, several chilling sequences with the demonic Ring Wraiths, The grander of The Mines Of Moria, the unstoppable Uruk-hai, and so on and so on and so on. Fellowship is so stuffed full of memorable scenes, both big and small, intimate and epic, that I could go on for years. Except to say the first moment I saw the Balrog appear my brain melted, my eyes imploded and my body evacuated itself violently from all orifices. Now THAT is a movie moment to savour. The world on show in Fellowship seems much more immersed in mystery and magic and myth than either The Two Towers or Return of the King, which seemed more grounded (overall). The greater opportunities to escape the real world are more prevalent in the first movie.
2/ Best structured story. Even though it's the first part of a trilogy, Fellowship feels like it has a proper beginning (Hobbiton and the start of the quest), a middle (Rivendell to Moria to Mirkwood) and an end. Like Star Wars is to The Empire Strike Back, Fellowship has the benefit over The Two Towers of having the band of heroes together for much of the movie before scattering them to the corners of the (Middle) Earth. And it also stands the strongest, away from the rest of the trilogy as a movie in its own right. As with most mythic quests, it's a coming of age tale, in this case divided into three parts in which Frodo, our mythic hero must make a choice. Each time that choice is to whether to carry the ring to its destination. The first time, Gandalf asks him to take it to Rivendell and Frodo reluctantly agrees. The second time, again with some reluctance, he volunteers before the Concil of Elrond to carry the One Ring to Mount Doom. It's only when he's stood alone on the riverside at the film's climax he decides to carry the burden alone, now knowing the full cost of his actions and knowing himself at this stage to know it's the right thing to do, despite knowing the consequences. It's a powerful moment, as Frodo closes his hand around the ring signaling his decision, and one in which the movie has been slowly building towards for three hours, but it rounds the movie off perfectly.
3/ The three b's. Another factor that distinguishes Fellowship over the other movies is the casting of Bean, Blanchett and as Bilbo, Ian Holm. One cannot imagine anyone else stepping into their roles which are handled all multi-layer and complex. Bean especially is at a career best, both heroic yet tragically tempted by the power the ring offers.
An undeniable classic then. But if Two Towers or Return Of The King is more your cup of tea you'll get no argument from me as the entire trilogy is virtually unmatched in quality.
I'm tempted to say about this fifth entry in The Fast And The Furious franchise that if you've seen one, you've seen them all. After all, it's got the same life sapping performance from Paul Walker, the same ill-advised use of CGI and the same rambling plotting that made the other films so average. But Fast Five is a little different. It's got scale and it's got silliness. Tons of silliness.
First off the dialogue, as scripted by Fast Three & Four's Chris Morgan and Gary Scott-Thompson, is the dumbest, cringe inducing, most cliche ridden of the franchise to date. You can smell that shit coming from a mile away (and the films take themselves a touch too seriously to pull that kind of bullshit off well). With a bigger team dynamic to work with this time, the screen writers largely let the opportunity go to waste. You end up wishing for the alchemist hand of Joss Whedon to magically turn the leaden words into gold. It's also got a wee bit too much of the soap-opera family dramatics that over-whelmed the Lethal Weapon franchise in its later installments.
Then there's the ensemble cast, this time assembled like a greatest hits compilation from the other franchise entries. Walker is still a charisma vacuum, Vin Diesel is pitch perfect as ever, Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris get to do the comic relief jive banter (which works well in the group dynamic), Sun Kang (from Tokyo Drift) is a distraction as he died in third film, Jordana Brewster does her best Ali MacGraw impression and Gal Gadot and Elsa Patasky are both brain dead, wooden actresses AND jaw droppingly stunning eye candy. And the less said about the team of tree trunk law enforcers the better, which slows the pace considerably.
The biggest surprise is Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson as the cop sent to take our heroes down. Now I love The Rock. It says a lot about his measure as a movie star and thespian when he's the very best thing in the turd-fest Be Cool. But he's taken on a role far beyond his ability in Fast Five. Physically he's perfect, perfectly embodying the unstoppable force of nature who inevitably must go mano-et-mano with Vin and his team. But acting wise, he's incapable of turning the shitty dialogue into something convincing. The role he's been lumbered with is basically that of Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive, and if Jones were cast I'm sure he'd be able to pull off the same kind of Oscar winning thesping he did in 1993. But Dwayne stumbles. Plus, the film follows the first film's basic plotting of relentless cop eventually teaming up with the 'anti-heroes'...except this time the cops motivations are so weak and so sudden it's utterly laughable. Again, in a more knowingly bullshit movie like Under Siege 2 or Passenger 57, this would work every time, but Fast Five still fancies itself as a proper thriller.
But, it is still good fun. Great locations, great stunts (the reliance on CGI is minimalised since the last movie), and the scale of the action is ramped up considerably...especially in an unbelievable, OTT chase sequence at the finale. The move away from street racing is a smart move and the swing towards heist movies (it's pretty much that contemporary Italian Job sequel they were always talking about) makes it far more accessible for haters of boy racers.
If you don't like the franchise then this won't change your mind, Fast Five is once again a solid entry in the series, and once again demonstrates it's a series with great, yet unrealised, potential.
The synopsis for horror movie The Hamiltons on IMDB is as follows:- "Four young adult siblings try to fend for themselves after the mysterious death of their parents. But they harbor some dark secrets which include abducting and killing strangers, and feeding them to a mysterious 'thing' living in their cellar."
It really pisses me off when a movie with great potential, backed by a substantial budget, is squandered by everybody involved from the star to the director to the screen writer. Yes X-Men Origins Wolverine, I'm talking to you. But fortunately there are those passionate, microscopic indie movies where every single contributor has given it their all. One such movie is James Gunn's Super.
Gunn has already produced the fantastic, but little seen, Slither which took the whole Invasion Of The Body Snatchers sci-fi genre and gave it a refreshing kick in the ball. With Super he turns his attention to comic books and super heroes by examining what it would be like if someone actually became a costumed vigilante. While this might have already been done with Kick Ass, Super takes the concept even closer to reality while being prepared to step even further over the line that Matthew Vaughan's classic did.
Super is fucked up. It's violent. Profane. The humour is very black indeed and the style ranges from the almost documentary like to the surreal, the camp and the silly. For a film working on such a micro-budget it's got a great cast from Rainn Wilson as the nerd hero, The Crimson Bolt, and the virtually unhinged Ellen Page as his sidekick Boltie. Add to that Kevin Bacon (clearly relishing the chance to ham it up) as the villain and Liv Tyler as the girl the spurs the hero into action. The icing on the cake is in the form of Gunn regulars Michael Rooker (sadly underused) and Nathan Fillion as the inspirational Holy Avenger. Everybody's firing on all cylinders with their comedic instincts primed to maximum.
Gunn's superb script is laugh out loud funny, shocking, touching and sad, going from grounded, reality based drama, to off-the-wall, to warm and uplifting without ever feeling tonally off. The soundtrack is well chosen, up there with a Tarantino flick with how effectively the tunes support the story while Brian Tyler's score is surprisingly strong considering the A-list composer is working for peanuts.
Super might be raw, edgy and lacking in that Hollywood sheen, but it's got more inventiveness, heart and balls than most movies you'll see this year. Simply super.
Luc Besson, acclaimed French director of Taxi, The Fifth Element and, er, Arthur & The Minimoys, said he was going to give up directing after 10 movies. And he did, for a bit. But thankfully he made a return with the bizarre and wonderful The Extraordinary Adventures Of Adele Blanc-Sec.
It's based on the comic book by Jacques Tardi and follows the exploits of infamous reporter and adventurer Adele, taking place 100 years ago in Egypt and Paris. It kind of reminds me of Stephen Sommers Mummy movies...but if that franchise had got it right in terms of judging the correct amount of silliness, the right amount of strangeness and the appropriate amount of character stuff. The story might be totally weird mixing Egyptian mummys, pterodactyls, mad scientists, big game hunters, prison break outs, resurrections and death from tennis...but it does so with wit, sophistication, a handsomely realised period world and an offbeat cast.
It's brilliantly held together by Louise Bourgoin as the title character. Not only is she utterly beautiful, but she has a flippant, tomboy-ish, contemporary attitude that clashes with her refined, classy attired exterior. It's a kind of female version of the roguish charm that made the Indy movies so watchable...except embodied in a feisty and curvaceous adventuress. Nice.
Of course it's Besson, so the farcical aspects won't be to every bodies liking and there may not be enough action for the MTV crowd. But it's got enough dry humour, cliffhanger escapes and radical banter (the Mummy conversations remind me of episodes of Angel) to make this a must watch movie. I just hope they make the sequel hinted at in the closing moments.
It's true of any film you watch, but when viewing a new film narrative the audience tries to deduce what's going to happen. One of the ways we do this is by comparing the story to that of similar films. The down side of this is if the plot is too familiar, and there's not enough originality (or boobs, explosions, or violent deaths) to distract us, the the film can get a bit tame and predictable.
Anthony Hopkin's latest, The Rite, is a bit like that. Watching the exorcist movie, with it's central story of a man coping with his faith, I was constantly reminded of parallels between it and superior movies like the classic The Exorcist and last year's The Last Exorcism. That's not to say The Rite is a poor movie as it's directed with maturity and class by Mikael Hafstrom and features a great performance (both subtle and naturalistic and powerful and creepy) by Mr Hopkins which highlights what a master craftsman the guy is.
But it's also a film with a bland leading man (sorry Colin O'Donaghue), a lack of atmosphere and scares and an absence of originality. So it's a bit like a high class hooker then. But a hooker never the less.
Duncan Jones debut movie, Moon, turned out to be something special. The question was, could he maintain that level of quality working with someone elses script, on a bigger budget, in the Hollywood studio system. Judging by Source Code, I'd say that he definitely can. In many ways Jones is proving to be a man with a consistent vision as Source Code, like Moon, is about a man struggling with his own identity and place in the world, has a high concept, hard science-fiction premise and has a structure which gradually delivers revelation after revelation.
The three leads, a paternal Vera Farmiga, a vibrant Michelle Monaghan and the driven everyman Jake Gyllenhaal all do great work. Gyllenhaal himself prove he can carry a movie and confirms he's a solid actor although I'm still not convinced he's true movie star material (way better than Worthington or Tatum anyway). Visually the film's a little flat (although Tony Scott flash isn't required for this) and the effects, minimal though they may be, are a little shoddy).
At the end of the day this is an expanded Outer Limits episode which riffs off Quantum Leap (so much so there's a neat cameo to acknowledge it) and Groundhog Day that puts character development front and centre. And into it's terrorist thriller plot are all sorts of intellectual musings on the nature of reality, morality and the tension between free will verses destiny. It's exciting, it's engaging and it's a pleasure to see adult, science fiction thrillers back in movie theatres.
Another film to add to the long list of unnecessarily maligned blockbusters is 1998's The Peacemaker. Perhaps it was because it was fledgling studio Dreamworks first ever release that critics turned on it. Maybe it was a case of kicking the popular George Clooney while he was down (he'd just come off the stinky Batman & Robin the year before). Either way, the bulk of their criticism is unfair as the film is an intelligent, white knuckle roller coaster.
The film comes across as the bastard offspring of Jack Ryan (of Tom Clancy's spy novels) and Jack Bauer (of TV's 24 which would emerge onto our screens three years later). In Nicole Kidman's character you have someone like Ryan; a brilliant, highly educated analyst, who's put in a situation way out of their depth, and who rises to the occasion thanks to their quick thinking, nerve and high moral values. Clooney gets the Jack Bauer role of being an impulsive, highly experienced field agent who's prepared to break rules and take risks, no matter the cost, in order to get results. It's the paring of these two characters, both having mutual respect for each other while standing their ground and fighting their corner, that provides the emotional core of the fast moving thriller.
The plot, much like 1994's True Lies and 1996's Broken Arrow, is straight out of a season of 24 or Clancy's The Sum Of All Fears ...terrorists acquire a nuclear warhead with the intention of detonating it in an American city. After a well staged set piece showing the nuke being stolen, the pace never lets up. There's two great action sequences (a Venice car chase and a Helicopter assault) which would do a Bond movie proud, while the last 25 minutes is a sustained pursuit through New York's alleys and streets to stop the terrorist from detonating the bomb.
It nicely balances the bullshit action movie aspects (Hans Zimmer's pounding score) with a restrained adult tone, while director Mimi "Deep Impact" Leder does a solid, if uninspired job of orchestrating the chaos. A youthful and cute Kidman is convincing as a person of authority while a swaggering and charismatic Clooney is clearly reveling the chance to do a macho, leading man stint (he's still in his early wobbly head mode before Soderberg tamed the TV actor in him).
Don't you just hate it when films don't measure up to their brilliant trailers? There's not too much of that around and when it does, it tend to befall comedies as they have a tendency to put the best gags in the promos. Maybe that's why I don't go and see too many comedies in the cinema, preferring to wait until they're released on DVD to see it they're worth it. But, once every few months or so along will come a comedy trailer that's so funny, that fits my comedy sensibilities so much, that it's impossible to ignore. This year, that film is Your Highness from the team that brought us the excellent Pineapple Express. And it turns out it's average.
The appeal of Your Highness was that it mixed a good old fashioned fantasy quest adventure with a raucous, crude contemporary comedy filled with profanity, violence and nudity. And while the adventure aspect works pretty successfully, the comedy feels a bit strained, mis-timed, and lacking in energy. It's like all the cogs and pistons are in place but the comedy engine is mis-firing. I think it's mostly down to the editing, the pace at which the gags are delivered and, most importantly, the energy with which the jokes are delivered. Director David Gordon Green has chosen a pretty realistic, poker faced style for the most part when a broader, more blatantly outrageous, heightened tone would have made for a funnier film.
Danny McBride is great, Natalie Portman sadly plays the straight man (although she does have a couple of laugh out loud moments) and James Franco remains a mystery. I'm no longer sure that he's great actor Pineapple Express and 127 Hours would have us believe and the negative vibe I got from the Spider-Man films and his Oscar hosting performances are actually the 'real' James Franco. Either way, he's not that funny in Your Highness.
Not bad then, but no where as hilarious as I'd have hoped. Maybe this will improve with age? Stranger things have happened.
When the Tarantino/Rodriguez collaboration Grindhouse was released, it contained four fake trailers for other exploitation movies. This promted a worldwide competition for amateur film-makers to invent, shoot and submit fake trailers of their own, with the winner getting to make a full length feature version. The winner was director Jason Eisener and the film was Hobo With A Shotgun.
Starring the enduringly talented Rutger Hauer, Hobo The Movie is not only fabulously entertaining, but it also beats the masters at their own game. Grindhouse co-director Robert Rodriguez went on to adapt one of his fake trailers into a full-length Machete movie, but I think Hobo bests him in the exploitation stakes. Hobo might not have the same budget (it's raw, small scale and cheap as hell) or the babes (Molly Dunsworth is no substitute for Michelle Rodriguez, Lindsay Lohan or Jessica Alba) or movie stars (Rutger substituting DeNiro, Trejo, Seagal and company) but it's leaner, more focused story, equally inventive iconography, witty banter and unhinged, uninhibited gore, violence and black humour tip this more in Hobo's favor.
If you're going to do an exploitation film that goes against the grain of mainstream cinema then I want my imagery extreme and I want it coming thick and fast. Convoluted story has no place here. Keep it simple. Keep it cool and keep it shocking. Hobo With A Shotgun might very well be Jason Eisener's Evil Dead. If so his next project will be anticipated greatly.
The taste of a mass audience, with regard to certain movies, will always be a source of constant surprise to me. Every now and again a film will come along that's artistically daring and intelligent, plus it's balanced with a commercial sensibility that ensures that a mass audience can find it accessible. Christopher Nolan films are a fine example of this as both The Dark Knight and Inception fall into this category, scoring huge critical acclaim and massive box office tallys. But there's also a small contingent of these movies that are met with apathy, disdain and a dogged hatred. Such movies like The Matrix Reload, Hulk and Death Proof have visionary, auteur directors making thought-provoking stories within the boundaries of hugely commercial genres like sci-fi, comic books and slasher horror. Some are subversive, some are ground-breaking and some are dealing with themes seldom dealt with in mainstream cinema...and they're all unique artistic visions. But it seems that sometimes being commercial AND intelligent is to be scorned and derided rather than welcomed and applauded. Sometimes all a mass audience seems to want is the same old shit. And that's frustrating.
The latest movie to fit this mold is Sucker Punch. Judging by the stunning imagery in the pre-release trailers things were looking good for the latest offering by Watchmen and 300 director Zack Snyder, until the film was eventually seen by critics. Given that Snyder's work is highly stylised and aimed at a young demographic, some critical backlash was to be expected, but the near universal moaning from the online geek community (the very audience it's aimed at) has been astonishing. Perhaps some feel that it's time to tear Snyder down, just as the Wachowskis were for Reloaded or Ang Lee was for Hulk. Maybe it's because it's too arty, concentrating on thematic content over a standard story narrative or maybe because the film has an unexpectedly downbeat conclusion that flies in the faces of mainstream audiences. Which ever way you look at it, the negativity aimed at Sucker Punch has been spiteful and vicious. So why is it not true and why the backlash?
Well first off if Sucker Punch is on a movie scale with arthouse flick at one end and blockbuster at the other then it's a film that leans a little more towards art and a little further away from story. Also, in art terms, this is doing a few unusual things you perhaps wouldn't expect in a blockbuster. Many scenes, including the dialogue-less pre-titles sequence is played to a song (in this case a haunting reworking of Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This), prompting a reaction that you're looking at a pop video (or a string of pop videos). The action set-pieces are structured like computer games with an objective explained to you at the beginning, hidden moves and a 'boss' opponent to be fought at the completion of the level. Theatre and dance play a major part within the story and visual look of the film, characters adopt the powers and abilities of comic book characters and Snyder plays with as many cinema techniques as he can get his hands on. It's an intoxicating mix and if you're not into these kind of modern artistic expressions, or are overwhelmed by the rich mixture that you're being presented with, there's a danger you'll switch off rather than engage in the narrative.
Sucker Punch is a tribute to art, or more specifically contemporary pop culture (if you're OK calling that art), and how inspiring art can be whether it's dancing (it's no coincidence Baby Doll imagines a brothel theatre), gaming, music, pop videos, theatre, comics or cinema. Adopting Terry Gilliam's body-of-work mission statement evident in everything from Brazil, The Fisher King and Baron Muncheusen, Zack Syder tells us that not only is art a place to escape from the pressures and burdens of the real world, it can serve to inspire us into action, or to understand how to solve a problem, or to reassure or encourage us to conquer our fears when we're back in that real world.
In Art College I not only learnt a trade I also discovered what I liked in other art so that I could understand what I wanted to say as an artist myself. I like Sucker Punch so much because much of that theme that I discovered I wanted to talk about myself has been focused and concentrated down into it's purest form in Sucker Punch; it's perhaps the movie I would make if I made movies. That theme is simple. The world can be utter shit. Some of it you have influence over and some of it is beyond your influence, but you always have control over how you deal with the world psychologically. You're ability to survive the trails of life is down to how you view it. In The Shawshank Redemption, which also deals with similar themes, it's distilled this idea down to a single line of dialogue, "Get busy living or get busy dying." Life isn't about moaning about how unfair it is, it's about realising that you have the power to change it if your willing to find the courage to fight for what you want.
The film is also an examination of women in society, which has led to a little controversy. On the surface it's about provocatively dressed, attractive young women using their feminine wiles to hypnotise and outsmart the men that imprison them (whether it's in a mental institution or a brothel). In order to progress in society it appears to say that women must behave and dress like sex objects. And just like other subversive films like Blazing Saddles or Starship Troopers, if the surface is all you see then that message is all you'll get out of it. But by the time we get to the third act, that illusion is well and truly quashed. Sucker Punch suggests it's only by playing by the men's aggressive rules and by supporting and caring for each other and their interests that women will succeed and change society.
Both Shawshank and Sucker Punch have two inspirational heroes which, despite their prominence in the story, are not the main characters. In Shawshank it's Morgan Freeman's Red who goes on an emotional journey to emerge a changed character, and not Tim Robbin's inspirational Andy, who remains something of an enigma throughout. In Sucker Punch the attention revolves around heroine Babydoll, but by the time we've entered the multiple level dream worlds she escapes to, we've then met Sweet Pea whose journey as a character takes her from from doubting, inhibited and cynical to motivated, courageous and full of hope. This is very much The Shawshank Redemption for the X-Box generation.
Narratively Sucker Punch deals with the same story problems as The Wizard Of Oz, Alice In Wonderland (both of which are referenced), The Matrix and Inception in that it deals with a dream world as well as reality, which can be difficult communicating to an audience not versed in this kind of narrative twist. Like Inception the film is dealing with three or more levels of reality (action level, brothel level, asylum level...and maybe even cinema itself level) and the film also leaves you not knowing whether it's all just part of one person's imagination. The clue is the opening shot as a curtain is raised on the film, reminding you that this is just a made-up story and it's not real while the confirmation is Sweet Pea's narration which suggests the film isn't her story either and in fact belongs to the real story-teller (probably referring to writer/director Snyder himself).
Critically it's had a bashing. For the most part this has been from people who are either turned off by the extreme nature of the directing style (slo-mo, speed ramping, tons of CGI, loud pop music, etc) or because they didn't like or understand the story. To the first half of these people I say tough; if you don't like dragons fighting WWII bombers fighting hot samurai chicks while Skunk Anansie blasts then this isn't the film for you. More for me then. To the people who don't like the story then I suspect it's either down to the downbeat ending (it has to end this way as our heroine isn't completely innocent) or they're not paying attention. Not only do I feel that Snyder's made it pretty clear about which level of reality the characters are in, I found the voice over a little too blatant in the meaning of what's going on. Snyder's certainly gone out of his way to make it easy for the thickies, much more so than Guy Richie did for Revolver, another great movie that's heavy on arty subtext and slim on story.
There's a more sophisticated group of critics that dug the film but still had gripes about the story. Some complained that despite all the dazzle, Sucker Punch isn't saying anything original or telling a story that hasn't already been done already. On that count I'd certainly agree, although it's certainly doing it in a ways that's vastly different so it'll speak to a whole new generation (much as George Lucas did with old samurai and war movies when he created Star Wars). Some feel the film doesn't come together emotionally or thematically at the end which I'd strongly disagree with. While much of the massive action bombast dissipates in the final reel the way in which Snyder composes his shots, scores the scenes or paces the final revelations means the film is reaching its crescendo, not diving to it's doom. And to those who complain that it's impossible to care about characters in a dream world because there's nothing at stake, I'd point them in the direction of Inception which works perfectly. Besides, that argument always falls apart. You're watching a movie...a faked version of reality where nothing ever is real...so if you can get emotionally engaged in classics like E.T. or Goodfellas which are just as fake, you can get invested in this too. Besides, gamers get invested in the fakeness of Halo or Assassin's Creed and they don't even have narratives, so stop your bitching.
Things that stood out were strong performances by the Amazonian Abbie Cornish's Sweet Pea and kooky Jenna Malone as her fiery sister Rocket and Scott Glenn as the dream world's paternal wise man/ mentor character. Snyder's visual composition is virtually unsurpassed and his handling of the four fantasy action sequences blinding. The design work rivals that of a Tim Burton movie while the use and choice of songs (covers of The Smiths, Jefferson Airplane and The Pixies) is inspired.
It's not all perfect. The film favors a grainy look akin to Snyder's 300 which cheapens the effects (but it's all set in a fantasy world so who cares about realism), the actresses are all great although Emily Browning's Baby Doll is stronger silent than when she opens her mouth) and the film goes a little bit too far out of it's way in the final moments to explain it's theme (but it still doesn't ruin the ending).
It's a brave and unique mixture that, judging by the scathing critical response, not every body has got. The pop culture is off putting as are the seemingly objectified women. If you don't like music videos or musicals, you're cussed. If you don't like movies that leave you to work out what's happening rather than explain it then you're going to be annoyed or if you think that comic strip action movies are no place for pretentious cinematic storytelling devices then you won't like it either. But if you love pop culture art in all its many forms, love feel good movies and love highly stylised direction then you might just think this film was made for you.
For an update of the movies we've lost and gained from the 2012 movie schedule check out the updated listings from this Blog's January ramblings...here!
God bless Starship Troopers. The more time has passed and the more and more I admire Paul Verhoevan's adaptation of the science fiction novel by Robert A Heinlein. Now, I've always like the film for it's cheery social satire, Basil Poledouris' operatic score, pulse pounding action sequences which accelerate along with the story and the gob smacking visual effects which I'd rank among my favorite ever (whether it's Sony Imageworks spaceships or Phil Tippett's creature stuff). Starship Troopers is funny, gory, exciting, great looking with a hot young cast mixed with legendary character actors like Michael Ironside and Clancy Brown.
What improves with age is the spot on satire of American culture. Released in 1997, the predictions about the US foreign policy is uncanny; after a less civilised culture (The Middle East/Alien Bugs) attacks and destroys a major settlement on home soil (Twin Towers/Buenos Aires)who are retaliating against a colonial invasion regarding resources (Oil), Military powers invade that culture (Iraq/Planet P) and completely underestimate the enemy resulting in a protracted war effort. All this four years before 9/11.
In place of the Hitler youth, Vehoevan recasts his recruits as the ultimate in good looking American teens from the daytime soap, chiseled jaws of Casper Van Dien and Patrick Muldoon and the blue eyes and slinky curves of Denise Richards and Dina Meyer. The society where violence and force is to be embraced is made to feel not only normal, but something to be encouraged while the military aspect is a glorified part of peoples lives. If you're right wing leaning with your politics you may find this depiction of the future appealing, but if you can see the tongue planted firmly in the cheek below the movie's surface, you'll recognise this war-centric society that's uncomfortably close (especially if you live in the States).
Whether you see this as a big, dumb sci-fi shoot 'em up spectacular or a sly , subversive dig at powerful military nations that have got too big for their boots, Starship Troopers is one hell of a fun ride.
Give me a spy movie, a caper movie, a war movie and a non stop action thriller all rolled up into one big package and I'd be a very happy man indeed. Thing is, that package already exists in the brilliant Alistair MacLean adaptation of Where Eagles Dare.
First, take a simple premise of an expert team of German speaking allies who are being dropped into Austria to rescue an an American General before he can be tortured into giving up the plans for the next major phase of the Allies counter-attack. Make the first hour a tense thriller, with the hero (Richard Burton) sneaking around behind his team's back, enemy undercover agents killing his men off one by one, and all the edge of your seat uncertainty as to whether they can covertly gain access to the enemies stronghold, a mountaintop fortress. Then there's the caper antics of the middle half hour as Burton cons both the good guys and the bad guys into thinking he's on their side to obtain his real objective; information. Finally, when Burton loyalties come down on the good side of the coin, it's a full hour of fights, firefights, explosions, leaps, falls, chases and an iconic cable car fight until they escape to freedom. Phew. Oh, and tack on the end a final revelation as the last part of Burton's meticulous con is laid bare. Brilliant.
Eastwood is cool as the American soldier along for the ride but this is Richard Burton's show all the way. He's tough, charming and magnetic to the point you're never quite sure what side he's on....or care either. The caper plot means this isn't just an adventure movie, but it's also a battle of wits as Burton seeks to deceive EVERYBODY else in the movie. Brinkmanship is groovy.
Finally there's Ron Goodwin's ever present score which underscores the tension and the action perfectly. It might not be the most serious or most important World War II movie in existence, but I'd wager it's the most fun.
For a long, long time I'd only experienced Walter Hill movies from 48 Hrs onwards, including Red Heat, Extreme Prejudice and Trespass, and had neglected the handful of films that had put Hill in the limelight to begin with. Besides, 48 Hrs is a classic so his earlier work was in no position to best that, was it?
Er, wrong. Hill's classic 1979 gang movie The Warriors is my favorite Walter Hill movie. To be quite honest I think the reason I love it so much is it's resemblances to a John Carpenter movie; the synth soundtrack, the sleek but gritty photography, the Hawksian male ensemble, character being expressed through actions not words and a Western plot reworked for contemporary times (1979). Everybody's suitably macho, especially a young James Remar as the fiery Ajax, and Deborah Van Valkenburgh is a welcome slutty addition to an all male cast.
The film has a slightly hyper-real quality to it as embodied in the quirky getup the gangs wear such as the iconic Baseball Furies (which is probably down to Hill's insistence this be taken as a comic book movie...a bad idea when you see that played out in the inferior Directors Cut). A great little movie that makes an effort to put it's style right up there at the forefront along with storytelling.
When The Shawshank Redemption got a UK release back in February 1995, I can proudly say I was one of the few people who got to see the film in a cinema. Twice in fact. Perhaps because of my love of the feel-good Field Of Dreams I'd been on the lookout for another inspirational movie working at a similar, exceptionally high level. With the British movie magazine reviews raving as well, I decided to catch Shawshank as the first part of a double bill with Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers. Big mistake, as Shawshank left me reeling, making watching NBK a next to impossible task.
Later that year I completed a higher education qualification in Film Studies, during which I got into an argument about the merits of the little-seen Shawshank verses the merits of the established classic One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest. At the time, few people stood up for the inconspicuous, cliche-ridden prison drama based on one of horror author Stephen King's short stories, and I was frowned upon for suggesting Shawshank be anything like as powerful as the Milos Foreman classic. It's a different story now. Shawshank stands at the top of IMDB's top 250 films of all time, after never leaving the top 5 in the decade the site's been running and it was in the top 5 all-time movies as voted for by Empire Magazine readers a couple of years ago.
At the heart of the film is a perfectly constructed script that centres around the friendship of two men. There's Andy Dufresne, convicted for the murder of his wife and her lover (something we're never sure he's innocent of until it's confirmed in the penultimate act) and Red, the prison go-to guy. Structurally the story reminds me a great deal of Ferris Bueller's Day Off which centres around the rebellious and heroic antics of Matthew Broderick's title character, but whose real story is the journey is that of his best friend Cameron. Same here, as Andy remains a mysterious, enigmatic figure throughout the narrative, it's Red's character that undergoes the emotional journey. It's beautifully summed up in three scenes placed at the beginning, middle and end of the story in which Red visits the parole board. In the first he's eager to please, saying what he thinks the panel wants to hear. In the second he basically repeats the same reassurances to the panel, but the enthusiasm has left him, leaving a hope free, cynical man. And in the third he taunts the panel, calling the board out on their sham of a procedure, not really wanting to be paroled anyway. It's a concise way to measure up the character over a plot which spans 20 years. The Redemption of the title turns out to be Red's not Andy's. After all Red is the only guilty man in the prison (so he says), admitting to committing murder as a teenager.
Structurally, Shawshank adheres loosely to the hero myth as Andy comes into the self contained, fully established prison environment and leaves everybody there changed by his presence; all of them just a little bit better for having known him. Andy's perceived suicide and subsequent escape serve the hero myth as the death and resurrection of the hero, even subtly highlighting this with Red narrating he'll miss Andy now he's gone, while tending to the prison's graveyard. Andy himself is an enigmatic, mysterious soul who maintains his integrity even in the darkest of times. It's of course no coincidence that when he finally does escape, it's through a tunnel as though he's literally being reborn. He falls into the water and holds his arms into a Jesus Christ pose with the water metaphorically cleansing his soul as he goes about his business in the afterlife (well, the free world in Shawshank terms).
Like many movies I love, the film boils down to a moment of choice. In Titanic, it's Kate Winslett deciding to let go of Leonardo Di Caprio (both physically and emotionally) and in Back To The Future it's George McFly deciding to kiss Lorraine. With Shawshank the moment of choice is reserved for the final moments. It's beautifully set up earlier in the film when institutionalised OAP prisoner Brooks is released from incarceration into an outside world he's completely lost in and unfamiliar with. These circumstances are repeated with Red's release leaving the audience to anticipate the same bleak, suicidal outcome. Thanks to Andy's inspirational words Red plucks up the courage to locate a message the escapee has left him and it's following scene where Red's read the note that he makes the choice to break parole. It's simple. It's powerful. It's the whole point of watching a film like Shawshank at all.
Within the story there's some fantastic sequences such as the aforementioned Brooks release. All films, all stories will have a moment in the film which takes the audience to an emotional low, so that when the emotional high eventually comes, the contrast between the two will make that high even more powerful. The 'Brooks Was Here' sequence is one of the most heart breakingly sad sequences I've ever seen. Aided by a great performance and soulful voice over from James Whitmore and a spectacularly haunting piece of score by composer Thomas Newman the film shows us what it's like to live in fear, crushed by the world, all alone and without hope, ending in the ultimate act of misery...suicide.
Then there are other moments which leave you on a profound high such as when Andy barters for some 'suds on the roof', as he makes friends and starts to give the audience and the other characters a glimpse of what makes him special. And there's the iconic Opera sequence as Andy adopts a defiant attitude, playing Mozart on the P.A. system to his fellow inmates. As director Frank Darabont notes, the entire film can be summed up in that single, moving sequence alone. In Shawshank terms music represents hope and freedom and it's utilised later when Andy gives Red a harmonica as a gift. Red being institutionalised and fearfully of embracing freedom on the outside, declines to play.
Darabont delivers a film that is stubbornly old fashioned being slow, steady and deliberate allowing the characters room to breathe. It's not a film about plot and more a series of events spanning a 19 year period which all converge on Andy's escape and Red's redemptive choice, but it's riveting all the same. Tonally this is both brutally punishing and yet it can be poetic, elegant and uplifting, and that's quite a trick to pull off by anyone.
At the end of the day Shawshank comes back down to that moment of choice as summed up in the philosophy of Andy himself when he says, "Get busy living or get busy dying". Freedom isn't where you are or what you do or who you're with. Freedom is a state of mind, a choice. If you can overcome your fear of the unknown and not be inhibited by your perceptions of what others think of you or perceptions of your own limitations, all you have to do is decide to make you're life better. That's damn right.
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...
