Wes Craven Did Take My Soul

Like fellow horror film maker John Carpenter, Wes Craven is now in his fifth decade of making movies. And while both of them prove to be capable storytellers when it comes to directing a slick Hollywood thriller, Craven has now evolved into a screen writer of shockingly poor ability.

His latest supernatural horror, My Soul To Take, is utter shit. There's no getting round the fact this is one of the worst scripts I've seen in recent years...and you're talking to someone who's seen a million cheap exploitation films in his years AND has a high resistance to liking naff entertainment. But My Soul To Take is way too much to take. If there's one thing I cannot abide in a movie it's boredom. It's THE worst thing any piece of art can be. And thanks to Craven's script this is the one horror film this year that'll make you want to slash your wrists while watching ab acre of paint dry, while cutting your jacobs off with a rusty blade. It's that dull.

The movie is 30 minutes too long, the serial killer is rubbish (in both visual design and concept), the cast are average but unremarkable, and the story slow and confusing. The main concept about a small town killer's soul being reborn in seven new born children, on the day he died, is extremely convoluted resulting in the audience have absolutely no idea who or what is happening through the bulk of the film (and this is from a person who gets Inception). There are endless scenes of brain numbing dialogue along with long, drawn out scenes of characters engaged in teen banter (that's supposed to come across as witty in a Kevin Smith / Tarantino kind of way, but isn't). Many many time my internal monologue yelled at the screen for the stupid people to stop their jaws from flapping and prayed (I'm not even religious) for the cast to get brutally butchered.

In the end you get a film that's a cross between Craven's biggest hit A Nightmare On Elm Street and Scream...and ends up being a timid shadow of both. As bad as John Carpenter movies got on occasion, they were never this bad. A career low for Wes.

January Pick N Mix

Above: If Disney made Jurassic Park...
Below: Mel Gibson has a new agent...



Here's a collection of movie spit takes...



An instructional video foe dealing with Zombies at Christmas...



Here's an Alternative Star Wars Christmas Special...



And an alternative ending to Tron...



Finally, if you've seen Mr Plinkett's review of Revenge Of The Sith, here's a link to his website RAPE THE FALCON!

Another Bughunt

James Cameron's Aliens, the 1986 sequel to Ridley Scott's classic Alien, is very special to me as it was my first 18 certificate film I saw in a movie theatre. I was only 15 year old at the time an terrified I'd get caught by the box office clerk or one of the eagle eyed usher, but I was desperate to see it. I'd seen the original on VHS which I'd taped from late night network television and being a hardcore science fiction fan and lover of all things outer space, I'd lapped up every minute. Then when I'd heard of a sequel, which just also happened to have dozens of the unstoppable xenomorphs and a bunch of military dudes with guns aplenty, I just had to risk sneaking in to see it. Sitting three rows from the front so the landmark experience could fill my entire vision, Aliens was the first movie to make me shit my pants in a cinema. Well nearly. When the encased facehugger smashed against the inside of the jar, myself (and my fellow audience members, jumped 10 feet out of our chairs. It was also the first cinema experience where a normally reserved British audience shook off their inhibitions to whoop and cheer as heroine Ripley demanded, "Stay away from her you bitch!" This truly is what cinema was invented for.

After that I got my confidence together and started seeing many more 18 certificate films, encouraging my friends to come along too, which included Cronenbergs The Fly, Lethal Weapon, RoboCop and Predator. While all of these films were classics and amongst the greatest films I'd ever seen, I was always disappointed that few of them gave me the same rush of adrenaline and exhilaration that Aliens gave me (only Die Hard managed that exceptional feat.)

Watching it again, and after several years as well, is like watching it anew and with a fresh perspective. But Aliens still affects me the same way. It's still James Cameron's best film, and that's saying something for a man with two Terminator movies, Titanic, Avatar, True Lies and The Abyss under his belt. All the character's are identifiable and three dimensional with Bill Paxton's Private Hudson being one of the single greatest screen characters ever committed to celluloid, with some of the best dialogue ever too, "Stop your grinning and drop your linen!" The designs and locations are welcome echoes of Scott's classic, but wonderfully re sculpted to adapt to Cameron's distinctive vision. Like the original, the visual universe of Aliens is a balance of the awe inspiring and the gritty and realistic.

Storywise, I used to prefer the original theatrical cut of Aliens, feeling the Hadley's Hope sequences diluted Ripley's story. But I soon realised this is little Newt's story too, and the story of the two women coming together to vanquish their fears and form a new family unit (along with the cool Michael Biehn's Corporal Hicks) was the emotional core of the plot. The longer version reinforces this.
And let's not forget Cameron's handling of action sequences of which I still think this is his strongest work. The initial combat sequence where the troops are ambushed and subsequently rescued by Ripley, is one of the most exciting sequences ever filmed. By itself that would be impressive enough, but the movie is packed with such action, from the facehugger sequence to the massive scale face off as Ripley escapes with Newt from the Queen Alien's lair. By the end you're left breathless and left wanting more...which Cameron duly delivers with the stunning Power Loader vs Queen Alien fight. At this point it's clear that Aliens isn't meant to terrify as Alien did, but to pummel your brain cells in oblivion with turbo charged action and character fireworks. He succeeds.

Still a classic that's just as effective now as it was 25 years ago, Aliens can proudly stay in my top ten films of all time.

The Resurrection Of J.C....The Carpenter

There's two ways to review The Ward. The first is as a horror movie. The second way is as a John Carpenter movie. Set in an American 1966 mental ward, Kristine, played commandingly by Amber Heard, is committed after burning down a farmhouse and losing her memory. And as a film in it's own right The Ward is an effective, well told yarn with several good jump-scares. If there's anything that lets the whole enterprise down it's that the story is built on a twist, that although a fantastic idea, is completely unoriginal, especially if you've seen this and this.

But since this is Carpenter's first movie in 10 years (he has done a couple of solid Master Of Horror TV episodes a few years ago) it's more interesting to see whether he's regained any of the class from his early years (70's & 80's) or remained in mundane hell (90's & 2000's). The result, I'm happy to say, is mostly positive.
The Ward is cinematic, being very effective at telling it's story visually rather than bombarding it's audience with rambling dialogue. Now that cinematographer Gary Kibbe, a regular Carpenter collaborator since 1987, has been given the push it's great to see his replacement has deliver the best looking Carpenter movie in 20 years, being classy, slick and professional looking wirg great depth and subtle colouring. There's a classic Carpenter female lead in the shape of the lovely Amber Heard, following in the footsteps of Jamie Lee Curtis, Karen Allen and Laurie Zimmer, playing a no nonsense anti-authoritarian character fighting the system (another JC trademark).

It's not all perfect. Carpenter has a tendency to edit his movie faster than his pre-nineties films, robbing The Ward partly of his distinctive visual signature. That distinct style is also lacking in the score, provided by Mark Kilian, which is less primal and minimalistic than one would hope for. And Carpenter's picked up a few bad habits over the last 15 years, such as cheesy screen fades between scenes, which seem distracting and amateurish.

While not in the same league as his early classics, this is at least better than In The Mouth Of Madness, Memoirs Of An Invisible Man and Village Of The Damned....and that's to be celebrated. Carpenter working below form is still more enjoyable than many modern horror directors on form, so this is a major victory for horror fans. Let's just hope he decides to direct a few more before he retires for good.

The Forty Five Quid Zombie Movie

Yep, you read that headline right. Colin was filmed in the UK for £45. And to give it it's dues, it's a lot better than movies that cost a lot, lot more (Dinocroc, I'm talking about you!) For a film with such small resources there are inevitable technical issues such as poor sound, unsophisticated natural lighting and a group of inexperienced extras (probably a load of mates called in for a big favor), but Colin rises above them. There's an experimental tone to the editing, there's great use of music and the bleached out photography lends to the apocalyptic nature of a zombie outbreak.

It's basically a zombie's eye view of a disintegrating Britain as the dead raising plague takes hold of an urban city. As zombie Colin roams the streets he intersects various stories of people trying to survive, along with his sister who refuses to destroy her flesh eating bother. It can be quite touching at times, there's a streak of black humour and a general competency that raises this above the level of a cheap, knockoff student home movie. It's not all perfects as the story is just as meandering as our hapless hero and sometimes the editor needs a firm kick to move the audience on from a particular shot or scene (it can drag on sometimes).

But based on the talents of director Marc price and his forty five quid investment, he should be getting paid on his next flick.

Poltergoost 3 - The Other Side Of The Mirror

The first Poltergeist is a work of genius because, despite what it says on the credits, it's pretty much directed by Steven Spielberg. For the 1986 sequel the Spielberg connection has gone and replaced by a daft Native American myth for the continued haunting of little Carol Ann Freeling, but it at least was well made and kept the continuity in terms of cast, composer and the warming Spielbergian glow.

By 1988's Poltergeist III, the only constant remaining was poor Heather O'Rourke reprising her role as the tormented pre-teen. And for the most part it's a sorry affair. Replacing Carol Ann's parents are Tom Skerritt and Nancy Allen as her aunt and uncle...both strong actors, to be sure, but the pathetic script id too much for them to combat. The diminutive Zelda Rubinstein makes an unsubtle return but she's quickly sacrificed in noble Obi Wan fashion. The setting makes for a pleasant change, a modern skyscraper, all gleaming glass, concrete and florescent lighting, but it comes off as cold and distancing rather than the homely qualities of the last two movies.

The film feel like a disaster movie...a haunted version of Towering Inferno. We're introduced to a whole bunch of disposable characters, including a group of annoying teens (including the very cute Lara Flynn Boyle), who get to be terrorised in the final hour. There's the impossibly dumb psychologist who believes the ghosts are all a hypnotic suggestion, the shoddy animatronic, smoke and lighting effects which look cheap (as the director wanted all the effects done 'in-camera') and a story that hardly gels as it's main character, in this case Nancy Allen's Aunt Pat, is completely ignored until the final five minutes!

The only thing that works is the conceit with the mirrors; the ghosts in the spirit world exist only in the reflections. Similar to the Kiefer Sutherland 2008 movie Mirrors, the reflection that should not exist are downright creepy, and it's made all the more effective knowing it was all achieved without the use of visual or digital effects. Very clever indeed (unlike the rest of the film).

Far more watchable than I'd remembered it, Poltergeist III is still the runt of the franchise. I said runt.

Lost For Words For The Kings Speech

On the day I write this review, The King's Speech has received 14 BAFTA award nominations including best film. It's up against some stiff competition including Inception, 127 Hours and True Grit but the true story of King George VI is worthy of the prestigious company. It's the little known tale of Prince Albert who suffered from a debilitating stutter, not only affecting his official duties but his personal interactions too (keeping his children's bedtime stories necessarily short). As Albert, who later succeeds his brother to be King of Britain and the Empire, struggles with a solution for his woes, he meet Lionel Logue, an unorthodox Australian Speech therapist.

It's a wonderfully absorbing film that works on several levels. It's a coming of age tale as Albert, or Bertie as his close family call him, not only learns to live with his disability, but to embrace the responsibilities of a King. It's also a 'bromance'...a story of friendship between two men from different classes, upbringing and countries who gradually become equals as the film progresses and it's a fascinating document of history from an unusual perspective. Both the scandal of Edward and Mrs Simpson, plus the rise of Hitler and the start of World War II form the framework for the narrative, with everything culminating in the King's speech of the title where Bertie must address the Nation ,via radio, regarding the declaration of War.

Colin Firth is suburb as the beleaguered Prince/King and is worthy of all the accolades currently coming his way. However, good as he is the role is utter Oscar-bait being about a person dealing with a disability (see Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot, Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man or Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump). Still it's an emotionally complex role which is handled superbly by Firth. However I think more should be made of the excellent contribution of Geoffery Rush as Logue, a man that is as common as you or I, yet has to make the King do ridiculous things in order to manage his condition and convince him to treat him as an equal...all done with charm, humour, dignity and a quiet, understated assertiveness. Oh, and Helena Bonham Carter is great too as The Queen Mother...in her youth, obviously.

Technically the film is flawless. The photography is surprisingly beautiful, the production design rich and textured and Tom Hooper is a very fine director. He's great at framing shots to communicate the standing of the two men, both in the eyes of society and each other. Hooper often places the characters on opposite sides of the screen to show Bertie and Logue's differing opinions and the placing of objects in the composition, like the radio microphone for example (which takes on an antagonists status) is placed to the fore of the frame.

A great story that deftly balances the larger world narrative of Kings and War with the smaller story about friendship. Jolly good, wot wot!