This film reeks of studio interference. The script is muddled and aimless, spending far too long on irrelevant scenes and skipping lightly over important plot. The effects are terrible, which wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so many of them, but half the shots in the film feature poorly-lit digital creatures and unconvincing compositing. The direction, editing, and cinematography are completely bland, showing absolutely no style or flair. What a criminal waste of a truly excellent cast. David Harbour is a brilliant actor, but he just isn't given the material to work with. Awful film. Just awful.
Reviews
39 Reviews
Die Präsenz
(2014)
The epitome of lazy found footage horror
26 June 2019
Don't let the German language fool you - this is every bit as derivative, unimaginative, cheap, and lazy as the worst found footage horror films made in America.
Every trope is here: slamming doors, sleepwalking, video glitches, jump scares, and of course idiotic characters putting themselves wilfully in harm's way when any sane person would have run away screaming ten minutes in. If you've seen Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity, and Grave Encounters, then there is literally nothing in this film you haven't seen before, and done much more competently.
Just one example of how shoddy this film is: when they needed the lights to flicker because of the haunting, they couldn't be bothered actually rigging up a dimmer switch. Instead they just dimmed the entire picture in post.
I resent the 85 or so minutes I wasted on this insulting piece of garbage.
Every trope is here: slamming doors, sleepwalking, video glitches, jump scares, and of course idiotic characters putting themselves wilfully in harm's way when any sane person would have run away screaming ten minutes in. If you've seen Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity, and Grave Encounters, then there is literally nothing in this film you haven't seen before, and done much more competently.
Just one example of how shoddy this film is: when they needed the lights to flicker because of the haunting, they couldn't be bothered actually rigging up a dimmer switch. Instead they just dimmed the entire picture in post.
I resent the 85 or so minutes I wasted on this insulting piece of garbage.
The Green Inferno
(2013)
An absolute shambles
6 November 2018
Considering the experienced filmmakers working on this film and the genre of cinema to which it pays homage, I can't really understand how it managed to be so very bad.
The Green Inferno is badly acted, ineptly written, poorly directed and edited, and fundamentally misconceived. It has no idea what it is trying to say or how it is trying to say it, veering wildly between stark horror and puerile slapstick. One of the characters is so poorly-written that I actually shouted "WHAT???" at the screen in multiple scenes as they became a full-on villain with absolutely no justification.
Even worse, this movie seems to be making a case that student activism is pointless and that some "primitive" people are savages who deserve to be wiped out. Parts of it come across as full-blown pro-colonial propaganda.
Perhaps its worst sin, though, is that it chickens out on the gore and exploitation. Despite all the posturing about "reviving a lost film genre", there is clearly a line in the sand that the film refuses to cross, and as a result it feels cowardly. Nicotero and his team did a solid job of the gore, and it's insulting to their work that the camera shies away from showing too much of it.
Eli Roth may pretend to be following in the footsteps of Ruggero Deodato, but he doesn't have even a fraction of his imagination and sheer bravado. Deodato had his faults, but Cannibal Holocaust was at least an honest film that dared to go further than any other films dared. Roth is a weak copycat in comparison.
The Green Inferno is badly acted, ineptly written, poorly directed and edited, and fundamentally misconceived. It has no idea what it is trying to say or how it is trying to say it, veering wildly between stark horror and puerile slapstick. One of the characters is so poorly-written that I actually shouted "WHAT???" at the screen in multiple scenes as they became a full-on villain with absolutely no justification.
Even worse, this movie seems to be making a case that student activism is pointless and that some "primitive" people are savages who deserve to be wiped out. Parts of it come across as full-blown pro-colonial propaganda.
Perhaps its worst sin, though, is that it chickens out on the gore and exploitation. Despite all the posturing about "reviving a lost film genre", there is clearly a line in the sand that the film refuses to cross, and as a result it feels cowardly. Nicotero and his team did a solid job of the gore, and it's insulting to their work that the camera shies away from showing too much of it.
Eli Roth may pretend to be following in the footsteps of Ruggero Deodato, but he doesn't have even a fraction of his imagination and sheer bravado. Deodato had his faults, but Cannibal Holocaust was at least an honest film that dared to go further than any other films dared. Roth is a weak copycat in comparison.
Transcendence
(I) (2014)
A terrible film that truly believes it is a great one
30 August 2017
A man uses advanced technology to connect people, heal the injured, and grant people superhuman abilities that make their lives easier. He is the villain.
A group that hates this man and wants to destroy his work shoot him with a poisoned bullet, kill dozens of researchers, torture and kill innocent people, and generally act like technophobic terrorists. They are the heroes.
With such an idiotic mix-up in the film's basic premise, it was never going to be great, but it's compounded with rubbish action, stupid science, completely illogical plotting, and nonsensical character motivations.
This film is a waste of a big budget and a great cast. I hate it more than words can express.
A group that hates this man and wants to destroy his work shoot him with a poisoned bullet, kill dozens of researchers, torture and kill innocent people, and generally act like technophobic terrorists. They are the heroes.
With such an idiotic mix-up in the film's basic premise, it was never going to be great, but it's compounded with rubbish action, stupid science, completely illogical plotting, and nonsensical character motivations.
This film is a waste of a big budget and a great cast. I hate it more than words can express.
Hunt for the Wilderpeople
(2016)
Funny, sad, touching, and life-affirming... but mostly funny!
29 May 2016
Only a truly gifted filmmaker like Taika Waititi could make a story about loss and acceptance so damned funny. It's a coming-of-age story about troubled foster kid Ricky, bounced from home to home because of his persistently bad behaviour, who finally ends up with a family of last resort: childless middle-aged farmers Bella and Hector, who live alone in their remote mountaintop property.
Against all odds, Ricky begins to find acceptance and contentment in this setting, but an unexpected tragedy followed by a series of accidents results in Ricky and his reluctant "uncle" Hector being on the run in the wilderness.
Despite the grim subject matter, Hunt for the Wilderpeople is laugh-out-loud funny from start to finish, interspersed with deftly-handled moments of sincere, touching pathos. Despite a bit of swearing and some brief talk of fairly adult topics, this is truly a family film, with something to keep everyone from kids to grandparents engrossed and entertained.
Against all odds, Ricky begins to find acceptance and contentment in this setting, but an unexpected tragedy followed by a series of accidents results in Ricky and his reluctant "uncle" Hector being on the run in the wilderness.
Despite the grim subject matter, Hunt for the Wilderpeople is laugh-out-loud funny from start to finish, interspersed with deftly-handled moments of sincere, touching pathos. Despite a bit of swearing and some brief talk of fairly adult topics, this is truly a family film, with something to keep everyone from kids to grandparents engrossed and entertained.
Flight 7500
(2014)
A big flying turkey - SPOILERS
4 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Oh dear.
Takashi Shimizu has proved he's a capable director with the iconic Ju-On films, and the inferior but still entertaining American remakes.
I honestly can't explain how 7500 manages to be so irredeemably terrible.
It has a good cast, though nobody puts in anywhere near their best performance, probably due to the utterly idiotic script. The interpersonal stuff is actually decent: the couple stuck on holiday together after breaking up due to repeated miscarriages have some real pathos to them, and the two featured flight attendants have interesting personal lives that invite you to care about them.
On a technical level, the film gets almost nothing right. We seem to have two flight attendants looking after an entire 747 full of passengers, a paramedic who gives up CPR after about thirty seconds, and a pilot who decides not to turn back and make an emergency landing but instead to proceed with the remainder of an eight hour flight after a passenger dies after only an hour in the air. The whole film is packed with this kind of idiocy. Oh, and low pressure? It makes plastic bottles POP, not SQUASH, you IDIOTS.
All the technical errors in the world could be forgiven, though, if 7500 simply worked as a horror film. This is its greatest failure. The scares are either out of nowhere cheap shocks or built-up moments of supposed terror that provoke a sigh and an eye-roll instead of a scream.
Then there's that ending. Oh god, the ending...
Okay, from here on there be SPOILERS...
.
.
.
.
Still reading? Okay, the SPOILERS begin now...
On what planet is that "they were dead all along" twist still even remotely original or appropriate? Memo for you, Hollywood: Carnival of Souls was made FIFTY YEARS AGO. This is not a shocking revelation any more. STOP USING IT.
The only way to make this ending work is to do something new and clever and daring with it, like Shyamalan did with Sixth Sense. Rewatch Sixth Sense and you will see that it is littered with clues, and even knowing the twist there is a wealth of cool details to discover.
7500, in contrast, has nothing. There are literally no clues to the twist ending. It literally comes out of nowhere. Even the attempts to insert some logic into the random string of deaths makes no sense.
We're told the shinigami will come for prematurely dead souls after they have let go of whatever is holding them on earth. Appropriately, then, two different characters are seen giving up something important to them, and then dying soon after. If this was carried through the film, giving it some structure and sense, then it would have been a much better movie.
But no - most of the characters die for no apparent reason.
Oh, and the revelation of the big "they've been dead all along" ending is also delivered without any thought or sense. For most of the film they can't see all their own corpses, then suddenly they can. Why? I have no idea. It's like a large chunk of story was edited out.
What a bad, bad film, and a terrible waste of a group of actors I have seen do much better work, made by a director whose best work is in the rear view mirror and shrinking fast.
Takashi Shimizu has proved he's a capable director with the iconic Ju-On films, and the inferior but still entertaining American remakes.
I honestly can't explain how 7500 manages to be so irredeemably terrible.
It has a good cast, though nobody puts in anywhere near their best performance, probably due to the utterly idiotic script. The interpersonal stuff is actually decent: the couple stuck on holiday together after breaking up due to repeated miscarriages have some real pathos to them, and the two featured flight attendants have interesting personal lives that invite you to care about them.
On a technical level, the film gets almost nothing right. We seem to have two flight attendants looking after an entire 747 full of passengers, a paramedic who gives up CPR after about thirty seconds, and a pilot who decides not to turn back and make an emergency landing but instead to proceed with the remainder of an eight hour flight after a passenger dies after only an hour in the air. The whole film is packed with this kind of idiocy. Oh, and low pressure? It makes plastic bottles POP, not SQUASH, you IDIOTS.
All the technical errors in the world could be forgiven, though, if 7500 simply worked as a horror film. This is its greatest failure. The scares are either out of nowhere cheap shocks or built-up moments of supposed terror that provoke a sigh and an eye-roll instead of a scream.
Then there's that ending. Oh god, the ending...
Okay, from here on there be SPOILERS...
.
.
.
.
Still reading? Okay, the SPOILERS begin now...
On what planet is that "they were dead all along" twist still even remotely original or appropriate? Memo for you, Hollywood: Carnival of Souls was made FIFTY YEARS AGO. This is not a shocking revelation any more. STOP USING IT.
The only way to make this ending work is to do something new and clever and daring with it, like Shyamalan did with Sixth Sense. Rewatch Sixth Sense and you will see that it is littered with clues, and even knowing the twist there is a wealth of cool details to discover.
7500, in contrast, has nothing. There are literally no clues to the twist ending. It literally comes out of nowhere. Even the attempts to insert some logic into the random string of deaths makes no sense.
We're told the shinigami will come for prematurely dead souls after they have let go of whatever is holding them on earth. Appropriately, then, two different characters are seen giving up something important to them, and then dying soon after. If this was carried through the film, giving it some structure and sense, then it would have been a much better movie.
But no - most of the characters die for no apparent reason.
Oh, and the revelation of the big "they've been dead all along" ending is also delivered without any thought or sense. For most of the film they can't see all their own corpses, then suddenly they can. Why? I have no idea. It's like a large chunk of story was edited out.
What a bad, bad film, and a terrible waste of a group of actors I have seen do much better work, made by a director whose best work is in the rear view mirror and shrinking fast.
Blood Creek
(2009)
Solid horror thriller, don't understand the negative reviews
23 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
How odd that this film got mediocre critical reviews and has such a low rating on IMDb.
It has some flaws, most notably an overly-talky script and a generally over-lit look to all of the night scenes, and early scenes don't make a lot of sense (seriously, why would he tell his brother NOTHING?).
Flaws aside, though, it has a bunch of cool original ideas, some startlingly creepy scenes, and quite a few visuals unlike anything we've seen before. It also has the benefit of an excellent cast, most notably Fassbender in a far more lowbrow role than I would ever have expected him to agree to. (Come on, who would have thought he'd say yes to being a blood-drinking Nazi zombie?) It's hardly a timeless masterpiece, but it's entertaining and really quite nasty in parts, and is packed with startlingly original visuals. I really enjoyed it.
It has some flaws, most notably an overly-talky script and a generally over-lit look to all of the night scenes, and early scenes don't make a lot of sense (seriously, why would he tell his brother NOTHING?).
Flaws aside, though, it has a bunch of cool original ideas, some startlingly creepy scenes, and quite a few visuals unlike anything we've seen before. It also has the benefit of an excellent cast, most notably Fassbender in a far more lowbrow role than I would ever have expected him to agree to. (Come on, who would have thought he'd say yes to being a blood-drinking Nazi zombie?) It's hardly a timeless masterpiece, but it's entertaining and really quite nasty in parts, and is packed with startlingly original visuals. I really enjoyed it.
The Poughkeepsie Tapes
(2007)
A skeleton of interesting ideas destroyed by shoddy execution
23 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Oh dear. I had been told this was an amazingly disturbing film, genuinely horrific, a must-see for fans of the genre. There was so much hype that I just had to see it.
Oh dear.
There is a kernel of a good idea here: a serial killer so meticulous that he changes his MO periodically to throw investigators off his scent. The sub-story of "murder by bureaucracy" is also a creepy concept, worthy of a whole film in its own right - a cop framed by a serial killer to take the fall for his murders, and revealed to be innocent only days after his execution? That's a great idea, but it's wasted in this film.
Sadly, these interesting ideas are destroyed utterly by a laughably bad script, idiotic attempts at police procedure, and universally appalling acting. Not a single performance in this entire film is convincing. Every single person who appears on screen or is heard in voice-over sounds like exactly what they are: bad actors reading a bad script.
For those seeking a dumb, trashy thrill, it doesn't even satisfy on that level: a handful of reasonably effective scenes of psychological horror are padded out by interminable periods of hilariously bad actors trying and failing to sound like cops and FBI agents.
This is a bad mockumentary, a bad horror film, and a bad thriller. It fails on almost every level. Don't waste your time with it.
Oh dear.
There is a kernel of a good idea here: a serial killer so meticulous that he changes his MO periodically to throw investigators off his scent. The sub-story of "murder by bureaucracy" is also a creepy concept, worthy of a whole film in its own right - a cop framed by a serial killer to take the fall for his murders, and revealed to be innocent only days after his execution? That's a great idea, but it's wasted in this film.
Sadly, these interesting ideas are destroyed utterly by a laughably bad script, idiotic attempts at police procedure, and universally appalling acting. Not a single performance in this entire film is convincing. Every single person who appears on screen or is heard in voice-over sounds like exactly what they are: bad actors reading a bad script.
For those seeking a dumb, trashy thrill, it doesn't even satisfy on that level: a handful of reasonably effective scenes of psychological horror are padded out by interminable periods of hilariously bad actors trying and failing to sound like cops and FBI agents.
This is a bad mockumentary, a bad horror film, and a bad thriller. It fails on almost every level. Don't waste your time with it.
Planet Dinosaur
(2011)
Good science, awful presentation
21 April 2015
Scientific issues aside, Walking With Dinosaurs was an immense success because it drew viewers into the lives of prehistoric creatures. They were living, breathing creatures, and audiences couldn't help but care about their fates.
Planet Dinosaur has two things going for it: solid science, and a great actor doing voice-over. In all other ways, it is greatly inferior to a series made a decade and a half before.
It is ugly, which for a big, expensive "spectacle" show is unforgivable. Every visual aspect is terrible: WWD's lush real-world locations have been replaced with flat, bland CGI backgrounds that would look disappointing in a video game; the dinosaur models are beautiful, but they are stiffly animated which makes them feel completely devoid of life; and the entire finished product is just terribly rendered. This is abysmal CGI, and the BBC bragging about how it only cost one third of WWD's budget is not a selling point; it's an explanation for why it's so damned ugly.
It would have been so easy for the BBC to hire Impossible Pictures and the whole WWD crew and make a sequel series that kept the heart and soul of what made WWD great while polishing up its more problematic aspects. Instead we get Planet Dinosaur, a series so ugly to look at it makes it seem like it was made BEFORE Walking With Dinosaurs, not more than a decade after.
I was so thrilled that the BBC had made another dinosaur series, but the finished result is deeply disappointing. I am one seriously unhappy dinosaur nerd.
Planet Dinosaur has two things going for it: solid science, and a great actor doing voice-over. In all other ways, it is greatly inferior to a series made a decade and a half before.
It is ugly, which for a big, expensive "spectacle" show is unforgivable. Every visual aspect is terrible: WWD's lush real-world locations have been replaced with flat, bland CGI backgrounds that would look disappointing in a video game; the dinosaur models are beautiful, but they are stiffly animated which makes them feel completely devoid of life; and the entire finished product is just terribly rendered. This is abysmal CGI, and the BBC bragging about how it only cost one third of WWD's budget is not a selling point; it's an explanation for why it's so damned ugly.
It would have been so easy for the BBC to hire Impossible Pictures and the whole WWD crew and make a sequel series that kept the heart and soul of what made WWD great while polishing up its more problematic aspects. Instead we get Planet Dinosaur, a series so ugly to look at it makes it seem like it was made BEFORE Walking With Dinosaurs, not more than a decade after.
I was so thrilled that the BBC had made another dinosaur series, but the finished result is deeply disappointing. I am one seriously unhappy dinosaur nerd.
Deep Rising
(1998)
Citizen Kane it ain't, but pure entertainment none the less!
13 February 2010
I finally found a widescreen DVD version of this recently and re-watched it. It's still one of the best examples I have seen of pure, unpretentious cheesy entertainment. It's not great art, by any means, but it's fun.
I did some reading online and found that, on its release, Deep Rising was universally trashed by the critics, and Roger Ebert lists it as one of the worst films ever made. Seriously? Did we all watch the same movie? Sure, it's big and dumb and loud and flashy and completely unbelievable, but lots of films are all of those things but still manage to find an audience and a modicum of critical recognition. Sommers's later films have managed to succeed despite being, in my opinion, inferior films (especially the truly awful Mummy Returns and Van Helsing).
It has so much going for it. The core cast are just fantastic - Williams is charismatic and tough, Janssen is gorgeous but smart, O'Connor has some of the funniest and most quotable lines, Studi has a great air of danger about him - and most of the support players are decent, if not outstanding. The script isn't deep or complex, but it's very tightly written and full of great one-liners and exchanges.
The effects hold up fairly well, apart from a few crappy ragdolls and some dodgy composites. The basic monster design it really quite cool, especially the creepy way in which the closed tentacles move.
The level of vitriol directed at this movie just baffles me. Honestly, why all the hate from the mainstream critics? Deep Rising is a big dumb action movie, but I think it's about as good as that genre gets.
8 out of 10 from me.
I did some reading online and found that, on its release, Deep Rising was universally trashed by the critics, and Roger Ebert lists it as one of the worst films ever made. Seriously? Did we all watch the same movie? Sure, it's big and dumb and loud and flashy and completely unbelievable, but lots of films are all of those things but still manage to find an audience and a modicum of critical recognition. Sommers's later films have managed to succeed despite being, in my opinion, inferior films (especially the truly awful Mummy Returns and Van Helsing).
It has so much going for it. The core cast are just fantastic - Williams is charismatic and tough, Janssen is gorgeous but smart, O'Connor has some of the funniest and most quotable lines, Studi has a great air of danger about him - and most of the support players are decent, if not outstanding. The script isn't deep or complex, but it's very tightly written and full of great one-liners and exchanges.
The effects hold up fairly well, apart from a few crappy ragdolls and some dodgy composites. The basic monster design it really quite cool, especially the creepy way in which the closed tentacles move.
The level of vitriol directed at this movie just baffles me. Honestly, why all the hate from the mainstream critics? Deep Rising is a big dumb action movie, but I think it's about as good as that genre gets.
8 out of 10 from me.
Dead Man's Shoes
(2004)
An amazing emotional meat-grinder of a film...
28 October 2009
Wow...
It's been twelve hours since the closing credits rolled and I am still processing my experience of Dead Man's Shoes.
"Experience" is certainly the right word; this film puts the viewer through a wide range of emotions, and by the end I felt exhausted, stunned, and numbed. That sounds bad, but as strange as it may sound, I mean those things in a good way.
Dead Man's Shoes is genuinely funny, thanks to flawless deadpan delivery of brilliantly-written naturalistic dialogue. The whole film has a documentary feel about it (one minor flaw, I felt, was the overuse of shaky hand-held camera-work) but it is, at times, beautiful to look at, with lingering shots and slow edits giving it a strangely dreamlike quality. The beautiful musical score, consisting mainly of lo-fi acoustic rock and folk, enhances that sense of melancholy isolation.
The entire cast deliver wonderful, believable performances, grounded firmly in reality. Considine, playing the vengeful returned soldier, is alternately pitiful and terrifying, with veins of pitch black humour running throughout. Kebbell, as his developmentally-delayed little brother, delivers what is simply one of the best portrayals of an intellectually disabled character ever filmed. His performance is subtle and utterly convincing.
Dead Man's Shoes is not without flaws, but they are relatively minor. The overly-wobbly camera has already been mentioned, but its biggest problem is probably its unsatisfying final act. Compared to the film that precedes it, the finale feels underdeveloped and flat. Still, it delivers a gut-punch of an ending that left me feeling slightly winded.
This is an amazing film. It is very dark and violent in parts, but its subject matter - family, justice, loyalty, and revenge - are universal. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
It's been twelve hours since the closing credits rolled and I am still processing my experience of Dead Man's Shoes.
"Experience" is certainly the right word; this film puts the viewer through a wide range of emotions, and by the end I felt exhausted, stunned, and numbed. That sounds bad, but as strange as it may sound, I mean those things in a good way.
Dead Man's Shoes is genuinely funny, thanks to flawless deadpan delivery of brilliantly-written naturalistic dialogue. The whole film has a documentary feel about it (one minor flaw, I felt, was the overuse of shaky hand-held camera-work) but it is, at times, beautiful to look at, with lingering shots and slow edits giving it a strangely dreamlike quality. The beautiful musical score, consisting mainly of lo-fi acoustic rock and folk, enhances that sense of melancholy isolation.
The entire cast deliver wonderful, believable performances, grounded firmly in reality. Considine, playing the vengeful returned soldier, is alternately pitiful and terrifying, with veins of pitch black humour running throughout. Kebbell, as his developmentally-delayed little brother, delivers what is simply one of the best portrayals of an intellectually disabled character ever filmed. His performance is subtle and utterly convincing.
Dead Man's Shoes is not without flaws, but they are relatively minor. The overly-wobbly camera has already been mentioned, but its biggest problem is probably its unsatisfying final act. Compared to the film that precedes it, the finale feels underdeveloped and flat. Still, it delivers a gut-punch of an ending that left me feeling slightly winded.
This is an amazing film. It is very dark and violent in parts, but its subject matter - family, justice, loyalty, and revenge - are universal. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
District 9
(2009)
An astonishing achievement from a new director
25 August 2009
District 9 is one of the most original, emotional, and just plain amazing science fiction movies released in many years.
Its young director has managed something truly extraordinary, weaving together a multi-layered fable in which inhuman treatment of alien refugees in South Africa is a direct analogy to the gone-but-not-forgotten apartheid regime, but also discusses far more wide-reaching issues of racism, political expediency, corporate inhumanity, and the evil that human beings perpetrate upon one another.
Probably the film's most amazing achievement is how effortlessly it makes us despise the humans in the film and barrack for the aliens. Even the film's human protagonist vacillates between reluctant hero and desperate coward, allowing his fear and selfishness to guide his actions at several important points in the story.
This is a remarkable film, made on a relatively small budget, and exhibiting an extraordinary degree of sure-footedness for a first feature. In can be violent at times, but never gratuitously so - everything that happens is in aid of the story.
District 9 is an instant cult classic, and I hope it achieves the kind of box office it so richly deserves.
Its young director has managed something truly extraordinary, weaving together a multi-layered fable in which inhuman treatment of alien refugees in South Africa is a direct analogy to the gone-but-not-forgotten apartheid regime, but also discusses far more wide-reaching issues of racism, political expediency, corporate inhumanity, and the evil that human beings perpetrate upon one another.
Probably the film's most amazing achievement is how effortlessly it makes us despise the humans in the film and barrack for the aliens. Even the film's human protagonist vacillates between reluctant hero and desperate coward, allowing his fear and selfishness to guide his actions at several important points in the story.
This is a remarkable film, made on a relatively small budget, and exhibiting an extraordinary degree of sure-footedness for a first feature. In can be violent at times, but never gratuitously so - everything that happens is in aid of the story.
District 9 is an instant cult classic, and I hope it achieves the kind of box office it so richly deserves.
Doom
(2005)
Why so much hatred for a reasonably competent film?
24 May 2009
I wasn't expecting much when I popped Doom into my DVD player. I got it for free in a cheap boxed set with a couple of other movies I actually wanted to own, and out of curiosity I threw it on the other night and gave it a go.
As a film that tops many "worst of the year" and "worst video game movie" lists, and often compared to the celluloid excretions of hack's hack Uwe Boll, I was expecting something very bad indeed.
Half an hour in, I was wondering when it was going to get bad. An hour in, I was wondering if all the bad stuff was in the finale. Then the final credits rolled, and I was left wondering if I had seen the same movie as everyone else.
I am not going to heap glowing praise on Doom, by any means, but it really isn't that bad. In most ways it is perfectly competent, if not outstanding. The script is no better or worse than most action films, and the cast, while admittedly B-list or lower, are fairly good for the most part, especially Karl Urban and Rosamund Pike (though as a Kiwi and a Brit, their fake American accents grate a little). The Rock brings modest but surprising depth and complexity to a shallow role, initially the action hero role, but gradually becoming more sinister. A few of the bit players are poorly written and performed, but most of the cast do a fairly good job.
Physically, the film is also competent - nice-looking sets, cool weaponry, decent costuming. The monsters are mostly from the man-in-a-rubber-suit school of makeup, but they are wisely left in dim light and shot in quick cuts that don't reveal too much. The special effects, important in a science-fiction film, are used sparingly and are quite good overall, including one well-done all-CGI monster.
Of course, it has some big flaws. Many of the cast fall into the standard horror movie trap of being too stupid to be allowed to live - walking off alone, putting down their weapons, that kind of thing. The script also just doesn't have a great idea of where it's going or what it's doing - the whole thing is a bit fuzzy and lacks a clear narrative focus.
The film's biggest problem, and the source of its most intense criticism, is that it almost completely ignores the established story from the Doom video games upon which it is loosely based. The source of the monstrous invasion is completely different - a bio-engineered virus instead of a portal to hell. I agree that this makes Doom a poor adaptation, but it doesn't make it a bad movie on its own terms.
Much derision was also piled upon the first-person-shooter sequence, and some critics claimed that most of the movie looked like a computer game. Well, those critics are idiots - the first-person section is less than five minutes long and occurs at the film's climax. Not only that, but it's even justified by context.
Look, Doom isn't great cinema. It isn't even GOOD cinema. It's reasonable, though, and is leagues ahead of Uwe Boll's unwatchable tripe. I am baffled as to why it was almost universally hated.
As a film that tops many "worst of the year" and "worst video game movie" lists, and often compared to the celluloid excretions of hack's hack Uwe Boll, I was expecting something very bad indeed.
Half an hour in, I was wondering when it was going to get bad. An hour in, I was wondering if all the bad stuff was in the finale. Then the final credits rolled, and I was left wondering if I had seen the same movie as everyone else.
I am not going to heap glowing praise on Doom, by any means, but it really isn't that bad. In most ways it is perfectly competent, if not outstanding. The script is no better or worse than most action films, and the cast, while admittedly B-list or lower, are fairly good for the most part, especially Karl Urban and Rosamund Pike (though as a Kiwi and a Brit, their fake American accents grate a little). The Rock brings modest but surprising depth and complexity to a shallow role, initially the action hero role, but gradually becoming more sinister. A few of the bit players are poorly written and performed, but most of the cast do a fairly good job.
Physically, the film is also competent - nice-looking sets, cool weaponry, decent costuming. The monsters are mostly from the man-in-a-rubber-suit school of makeup, but they are wisely left in dim light and shot in quick cuts that don't reveal too much. The special effects, important in a science-fiction film, are used sparingly and are quite good overall, including one well-done all-CGI monster.
Of course, it has some big flaws. Many of the cast fall into the standard horror movie trap of being too stupid to be allowed to live - walking off alone, putting down their weapons, that kind of thing. The script also just doesn't have a great idea of where it's going or what it's doing - the whole thing is a bit fuzzy and lacks a clear narrative focus.
The film's biggest problem, and the source of its most intense criticism, is that it almost completely ignores the established story from the Doom video games upon which it is loosely based. The source of the monstrous invasion is completely different - a bio-engineered virus instead of a portal to hell. I agree that this makes Doom a poor adaptation, but it doesn't make it a bad movie on its own terms.
Much derision was also piled upon the first-person-shooter sequence, and some critics claimed that most of the movie looked like a computer game. Well, those critics are idiots - the first-person section is less than five minutes long and occurs at the film's climax. Not only that, but it's even justified by context.
Look, Doom isn't great cinema. It isn't even GOOD cinema. It's reasonable, though, and is leagues ahead of Uwe Boll's unwatchable tripe. I am baffled as to why it was almost universally hated.
Shoot 'Em Up
(2007)
50% homage, 50% parody, 100% fun
2 November 2008
Honestly, browsing through some of the comments on here, some people need to get a sense of humour. Shoot 'Em Up is not a film to be taken seriously - if you take it seriously, you will hate it.
I bought it on a whim in "buy two, get a third DVD free" deal, and I would have felt happy paying a lot more for it.
Shoot 'Em Up pokes fun at the modern action film even while it is paying loving homage to it. Every scene drips with self-deprecating winks at the camera, and no action film trope is left unused. Paul Giamatti's villainous Hertz even points out around halfway through how ridiculous it is, saying, "Either we really suck, or this guy is really good." One scene even shows a literal queue of disposable badguys shuffling up the stairs in single file, waiting to be picked off.
It is clear that the makers of this film love the action films of John Woo, the Wachowskis, John McTiernan, Quentin Tarantino, and Robert Rodriguez, even though they are aware of the absurdities of the genre.
I laughed and cringed all the way through Shoot 'Em Up. If you're a fan of action films and have a sense of humour, give it a go. If you feel you need to take every film seriously, stay far away - Shoot 'Em Up doesn't even take itself seriously, let alone expect anyone else to.
I bought it on a whim in "buy two, get a third DVD free" deal, and I would have felt happy paying a lot more for it.
Shoot 'Em Up pokes fun at the modern action film even while it is paying loving homage to it. Every scene drips with self-deprecating winks at the camera, and no action film trope is left unused. Paul Giamatti's villainous Hertz even points out around halfway through how ridiculous it is, saying, "Either we really suck, or this guy is really good." One scene even shows a literal queue of disposable badguys shuffling up the stairs in single file, waiting to be picked off.
It is clear that the makers of this film love the action films of John Woo, the Wachowskis, John McTiernan, Quentin Tarantino, and Robert Rodriguez, even though they are aware of the absurdities of the genre.
I laughed and cringed all the way through Shoot 'Em Up. If you're a fan of action films and have a sense of humour, give it a go. If you feel you need to take every film seriously, stay far away - Shoot 'Em Up doesn't even take itself seriously, let alone expect anyone else to.
This is what Love and Monsters should have been
19 May 2008
What a magnificent episode! Steven Moffat is well known on UK television as a brilliant writer, and some of his more complex episodes of the classic comedy Coupling show how well he can juggle a fragmented narrative without dropping any of the pieces. Blink feels like the main event that Moffat has been working toward, the logical conclusion of his growth as a writer.
Season 2's Love and Monsters was a necessary evil, an episode with very little footage of the Doctor or Rose, to allow bit of breathing room in the shooting schedule. Unfortunately, it just wasn't very good. In exactly the same position, Moffat has crafted an incredible story, involving the Doctor and Martha only as supporting players, with a likable single-episode heroine who carries the story brilliantly.
If you only see one episode of the new Doctor Who, see this one. It's even self-contained and doesn't require viewers to have seen any previous episodes to enjoy it. If you want to introduce friends to the joys of Doctor Who, this is probably your best choice, too.
Oh, and the girl playing Sally is utterly gorgeous, too. The eye candy certainly doesn't hurt. :)
Season 2's Love and Monsters was a necessary evil, an episode with very little footage of the Doctor or Rose, to allow bit of breathing room in the shooting schedule. Unfortunately, it just wasn't very good. In exactly the same position, Moffat has crafted an incredible story, involving the Doctor and Martha only as supporting players, with a likable single-episode heroine who carries the story brilliantly.
If you only see one episode of the new Doctor Who, see this one. It's even self-contained and doesn't require viewers to have seen any previous episodes to enjoy it. If you want to introduce friends to the joys of Doctor Who, this is probably your best choice, too.
Oh, and the girl playing Sally is utterly gorgeous, too. The eye candy certainly doesn't hurt. :)
Halloween
(2007)
The more I see of Rob Zombie's directing work, the more I appreciate him as a musician
2 February 2008
The Halloween remake is, sadly, rubbish. A substandard film blasted into the depths of awfulness because of comparison to the classic original.
Rob Zombie once again demonstrates how, as much as he loves horror, he doesn't understand it and cannot create it. He has no ability at all to build suspense, shock the viewer, or generate fear. On top of that, he also shows that he doesn't understand what made Michael Myers so great. Michael was frightening because what he wasn't. He was from a happy family, he had no history of violence, there was simply no decipherable pathology. Something inside him just broke one day, and he became the true essence of cold inhuman evil. He wasn't insane, he had no ultimate goal, he had no logical reasoning at all that we could detect. He existed to kill, and to kill without either remorse or relish. Michael, the real Michael, never exhibited fury or enjoyment when he killed. He also wasn't a massive giant of a man - in all respects he seemed to be a normal-looking guy.
In the remake, Rob Zombie has gone off on completely the wrong track. He gives Michael a totally clichéd backstory, and makes him a perfectly human psychopath. Then, he has made Michael into a giant pro-wrestler looking guy, rather than the mundane evil of the original.
Basically, Rob Zombie has taken the dead skin of Carpenter's seminal masterpiece and stuffed it with a stack of uninspired clichés, and in the process has forced out everything that made the original so good. If you love the original, stay well away. If you've never seen the original, see it first. If you prefer the remake, get professional help.
Rob Zombie once again demonstrates how, as much as he loves horror, he doesn't understand it and cannot create it. He has no ability at all to build suspense, shock the viewer, or generate fear. On top of that, he also shows that he doesn't understand what made Michael Myers so great. Michael was frightening because what he wasn't. He was from a happy family, he had no history of violence, there was simply no decipherable pathology. Something inside him just broke one day, and he became the true essence of cold inhuman evil. He wasn't insane, he had no ultimate goal, he had no logical reasoning at all that we could detect. He existed to kill, and to kill without either remorse or relish. Michael, the real Michael, never exhibited fury or enjoyment when he killed. He also wasn't a massive giant of a man - in all respects he seemed to be a normal-looking guy.
In the remake, Rob Zombie has gone off on completely the wrong track. He gives Michael a totally clichéd backstory, and makes him a perfectly human psychopath. Then, he has made Michael into a giant pro-wrestler looking guy, rather than the mundane evil of the original.
Basically, Rob Zombie has taken the dead skin of Carpenter's seminal masterpiece and stuffed it with a stack of uninspired clichés, and in the process has forced out everything that made the original so good. If you love the original, stay well away. If you've never seen the original, see it first. If you prefer the remake, get professional help.
Mirrormask
(2005)
The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, Neverending Story, and now MirrorMask...
12 December 2005
MirrorMask is a truly great fantasy film for all ages, a tangled whirlwind of dreams, fantasies, nightmares, and allegory. The plot is at once simple and convoluted, and either a bizarre literal fantasy or a beautifully crafted allegory... and perhaps both...
Its major themes are growing up, leaving childhood behind, but doing so with wisdom and compassion, and retaining the essential child within that allows us to be complete adults. All things change, and all things must end, so grow up and move on in the world, the film says, but remember to take some childhood along with you. A child becomes an adult, but is not replaced by a whole new person.
Almost everything in this film is magnificent. The casting and performances are simply flawless, with most of the cast being forced to act through heavy masks and makeup, and react to imaginary things that would be added later by the effects crew. The whole film looks incredible, with Dave McKean's artistic vision beautifully expanded by a crew of hardworking technicians. The music and sound design are likewise wonderful.
MirrorMask has some disappointing shortfalls, however. The script is a bit muddled and unsatisfying in parts, though it also has many wide strokes of genius - the dialogue is especially good. Some character motivations are rather fuzzy, and the plot takes a few uneven turns that don't quite run smoothly. Its tiny budget lets it down at times, too, with some distracting flaws in the digital compositing and 3D rendering.
With a few million more in the budget and a cleaner, tighter script, MirrorMask would have been a perfect all-ages fantasy film. As it is, I still give it nine out of ten.
Its major themes are growing up, leaving childhood behind, but doing so with wisdom and compassion, and retaining the essential child within that allows us to be complete adults. All things change, and all things must end, so grow up and move on in the world, the film says, but remember to take some childhood along with you. A child becomes an adult, but is not replaced by a whole new person.
Almost everything in this film is magnificent. The casting and performances are simply flawless, with most of the cast being forced to act through heavy masks and makeup, and react to imaginary things that would be added later by the effects crew. The whole film looks incredible, with Dave McKean's artistic vision beautifully expanded by a crew of hardworking technicians. The music and sound design are likewise wonderful.
MirrorMask has some disappointing shortfalls, however. The script is a bit muddled and unsatisfying in parts, though it also has many wide strokes of genius - the dialogue is especially good. Some character motivations are rather fuzzy, and the plot takes a few uneven turns that don't quite run smoothly. Its tiny budget lets it down at times, too, with some distracting flaws in the digital compositing and 3D rendering.
With a few million more in the budget and a cleaner, tighter script, MirrorMask would have been a perfect all-ages fantasy film. As it is, I still give it nine out of ten.
Wolf Creek
(2005)
Old school
9 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I walked out of the cinema tonight thinking, "That wasn't so bad. Neither as scary nor as gory as I had heard. Good, sure, but didn't match the controversy..." Then, as I walked to my car, I noticed that my arms were covered in goosebumps, and I had driven halfway home before they disappeared.
Wolf Creek is a weird one. It is violent, but not gory, disturbing its audience more with sound effects, suggestion, and clever editing than with explicit on-screen violence. It is scary, but rarely in a jump-out-and-yell-BOO kind of way, and not really in a traditional Hitchcockian suspense kind of way either. I words like "unsettling" and "gruelling" sum the film up better than "scary" or "suspenseful". Its second half is certainly an ordeal, even for a hardened horror fan such as myself.
Many factors work in Wolf Creek's favour, making it as affecting as it is. Primarily, I think, is the fact that it is deadly serious. This is not a postmodern, tongue-in-cheek Scream clone. We are not presented with a shooting gallery of pretty cardboard starlets, who drop one by one in a bucket of fake blood. Instead, we are introduced to three very real human beings - likable, but flawed, being neither heroes nor villains. These three are just people, pleasant and good-looking twentysomethings on holiday, having some fun. In addition to this, we are given almost half the film to get to know them; we watch them flirt, play, fight, party, and do normal twentysomethings-on-holiday stuff. You get to like these people, and that makes the horror to follow in the film's second half a lot harder to withstand.
Also working in the film's favour are its production values. This is an extremely well-made movie from a technical viewpoint, especially considering its tiny budget. It is beautifully shot, deftly directed, and its editing work is nothing short of brilliant. The musical score, both licensed and original, works perfectly, and its sound design is stomach-churningly good. All these factors work primarily because they do not draw attention to themselves. The audience is not distracted by tacky music, poor acting, shaky sets, or other technical and artistic flaws. No, we are given a very clear field in which to see the horror.
I have rated the film nine out of ten. I would have given it a ten, as it is a damned near perfect horror film, except for one serious flaw: the ending. I will not reveal any spoilers, but the ending is a problem. It comes out of nowhere, abruptly changes the tone and style of the film, and honestly feels like a reel is missing. Apart from an unsatisfying epilogue, the film does not really have an ending at all, as such, but simply ends. This is a pity, as this is the only serious flaw in an otherwise masterful horror film.
This is a serious horror film, for fans of horror cinema, and therefore it is not for everybody. If you dislike being frightened, disturbed, or repelled by a film, do not watch it. If, on the other hand, you like to be scared witless and to walk out of a cinema feeling disquieted, then rush out and see Wold Creek before it finishes its cinema run.
Wolf Creek is a weird one. It is violent, but not gory, disturbing its audience more with sound effects, suggestion, and clever editing than with explicit on-screen violence. It is scary, but rarely in a jump-out-and-yell-BOO kind of way, and not really in a traditional Hitchcockian suspense kind of way either. I words like "unsettling" and "gruelling" sum the film up better than "scary" or "suspenseful". Its second half is certainly an ordeal, even for a hardened horror fan such as myself.
Many factors work in Wolf Creek's favour, making it as affecting as it is. Primarily, I think, is the fact that it is deadly serious. This is not a postmodern, tongue-in-cheek Scream clone. We are not presented with a shooting gallery of pretty cardboard starlets, who drop one by one in a bucket of fake blood. Instead, we are introduced to three very real human beings - likable, but flawed, being neither heroes nor villains. These three are just people, pleasant and good-looking twentysomethings on holiday, having some fun. In addition to this, we are given almost half the film to get to know them; we watch them flirt, play, fight, party, and do normal twentysomethings-on-holiday stuff. You get to like these people, and that makes the horror to follow in the film's second half a lot harder to withstand.
Also working in the film's favour are its production values. This is an extremely well-made movie from a technical viewpoint, especially considering its tiny budget. It is beautifully shot, deftly directed, and its editing work is nothing short of brilliant. The musical score, both licensed and original, works perfectly, and its sound design is stomach-churningly good. All these factors work primarily because they do not draw attention to themselves. The audience is not distracted by tacky music, poor acting, shaky sets, or other technical and artistic flaws. No, we are given a very clear field in which to see the horror.
I have rated the film nine out of ten. I would have given it a ten, as it is a damned near perfect horror film, except for one serious flaw: the ending. I will not reveal any spoilers, but the ending is a problem. It comes out of nowhere, abruptly changes the tone and style of the film, and honestly feels like a reel is missing. Apart from an unsatisfying epilogue, the film does not really have an ending at all, as such, but simply ends. This is a pity, as this is the only serious flaw in an otherwise masterful horror film.
This is a serious horror film, for fans of horror cinema, and therefore it is not for everybody. If you dislike being frightened, disturbed, or repelled by a film, do not watch it. If, on the other hand, you like to be scared witless and to walk out of a cinema feeling disquieted, then rush out and see Wold Creek before it finishes its cinema run.
Dead End
(I) (2003)
Unimaginative, smug, poorly-written...
28 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Without giving any spoilers, I must say that the "big twist" in this film has been done many, many times before, but rarely has it been done so ineptly or so obviously. Literally five minutes into the film I had guessed what was going on. The next seventy-five minutes felt like eternity.
While waiting for the painfully obvious final revelation I was treated to terrible acting from what should have been a good cast - Ray Wise is always a treat to watch, but the stilted and unbelievable dialogue forced between his lips just made me cringe. I was treated to every rebellious teenager cliché available - teasing the sister, baiting her boyfriend, masturbating to porn, swearing at parents, and getting stoned (and I don't recall ever seeing someone act stoned so poorly). Naturally, he gets all concerned and sad and reveals he really does care about his sister when things get rough. I was treated to an embarrassingly inept portrayal of post-traumatic stress induced madness from a veteran actress who should have known better.
To all those people who seem to think this is some kind of minor masterpiece, get out and see some of the genuinely good examples in the subgenre, such as the original Carnival of Souls. Pointless hackery like this is just a waste of everyone's time.
While waiting for the painfully obvious final revelation I was treated to terrible acting from what should have been a good cast - Ray Wise is always a treat to watch, but the stilted and unbelievable dialogue forced between his lips just made me cringe. I was treated to every rebellious teenager cliché available - teasing the sister, baiting her boyfriend, masturbating to porn, swearing at parents, and getting stoned (and I don't recall ever seeing someone act stoned so poorly). Naturally, he gets all concerned and sad and reveals he really does care about his sister when things get rough. I was treated to an embarrassingly inept portrayal of post-traumatic stress induced madness from a veteran actress who should have known better.
To all those people who seem to think this is some kind of minor masterpiece, get out and see some of the genuinely good examples in the subgenre, such as the original Carnival of Souls. Pointless hackery like this is just a waste of everyone's time.
Patrick
(1978)
Cheaply-made, but stylish and effective.
3 December 2003
I didn't know Aussies were making horror films like this in the late 70s, full of visual imagination and inventive direction. Aussie horror flicks are rare enough as it is, but genuinely good ones are a rarity, I am sad to say.
Patrick is one of the rare good ones, and it is a seriously underappreciated film. The titular character is a young man in a coma, shocked into inactivity by the death of his mother. He is, according to all medical tests, clinically dead, kept alive only by machines. The new nurse, however, thinks otherwise. Is there something going on behind that vacant face? Something evil? ...and powerful?
The first thing that struck me, mere seconds into the film, was the wonderful camera work and direction. Richard Franklin, who later went on to direct the also-underappreciated Psycho II, did an amazing job. On the topic of Psycho, it is obvious that he was a fan of Hitchcock - there are many visual tributes to Psycho and other Hitchcock films.
Made on a shoestring, as all Aussie films are, but especially horror films, it features only the most basic of optical, on-set, and make-up effects, but the way in which the cast takes them seriously lends them far more weight than they would otherwise carry.
Speaking of the cast, they are uniformly excellent, especially the sublime and sadly missed Sir Robert Helpmann - more famous for his dancing than his acting, he was never the less a greatly-respected cornerstone of 70s and 80s Australian cinema. While the rest of the cast are very good, it is Helpmann who really carries the film, exuding class and professionalism even while being flung about on strings and wrestling with a rubber axe.
Patrick is an effective thriller, which transcends its miniscule budget and makes good on its rather lofty ambitions. If you don't mind Aussie accents in your cheaply-made supernatural thrillers, I recommend it highly.
Patrick is one of the rare good ones, and it is a seriously underappreciated film. The titular character is a young man in a coma, shocked into inactivity by the death of his mother. He is, according to all medical tests, clinically dead, kept alive only by machines. The new nurse, however, thinks otherwise. Is there something going on behind that vacant face? Something evil? ...and powerful?
The first thing that struck me, mere seconds into the film, was the wonderful camera work and direction. Richard Franklin, who later went on to direct the also-underappreciated Psycho II, did an amazing job. On the topic of Psycho, it is obvious that he was a fan of Hitchcock - there are many visual tributes to Psycho and other Hitchcock films.
Made on a shoestring, as all Aussie films are, but especially horror films, it features only the most basic of optical, on-set, and make-up effects, but the way in which the cast takes them seriously lends them far more weight than they would otherwise carry.
Speaking of the cast, they are uniformly excellent, especially the sublime and sadly missed Sir Robert Helpmann - more famous for his dancing than his acting, he was never the less a greatly-respected cornerstone of 70s and 80s Australian cinema. While the rest of the cast are very good, it is Helpmann who really carries the film, exuding class and professionalism even while being flung about on strings and wrestling with a rubber axe.
Patrick is an effective thriller, which transcends its miniscule budget and makes good on its rather lofty ambitions. If you don't mind Aussie accents in your cheaply-made supernatural thrillers, I recommend it highly.
Teenage Caveman
(2002 TV Movie)
I thought Clark was meant to be a GOOD director...?
13 November 2003
I had never seen any of Clark's infamous films, such as Kids and Ken Park, but I have heard that he is a talented director.
Then I saw Teenage Caveman.
A painfully obvious cable TV production, shot on video in what looks like a national park five minutes out of LA, Teenage Caveman is awful in almost every way. Flat, boring direction, uninspired use of the camera, abysmal production values, dull attempts at titillation (in a "lots of breasts but nothing else" made for cable kind of way), a bad script that just goes nowhere, and a terrible cast... I could go on and on about how awful this film is.
The real tragedy is that the idea is an interesting one - generations after an unspecified apocalypse, a group of young neo-cavemen stumble across an old scientific installation, occupied only by two apparently young people. These two are the products of an experiment of a hundred years before, to create people who could survive the coming devastation. Predictably, their motives in taking in the young primitives are less than pure.
Aesthetically, the film is a mess. The titular teenage cavemen and cavewomen are obnoxiously clean, with perfect teeth, salon hair, and flawless skin which is liberally coated in makeup. Their clothing consists of carefully tailored rags which would not look at all out of place in a goth club or on a catwalk. It is just plain stupid. Even worse is their dialogue - completely contemporary at all times, with a complete modern vocabulary full of words that should not be known by a fifth generation primitive with no technology.
The horror makeup and gore effects are about the only competent thing about the whole film, created as they were by Stan Winston's crew. The digitally-assisted effects never really work, but the prosthetics and animatronics are decent.
In summary: do not watch this film. It is poorly-written, poorly-made, poorly-performed garbage, the worst film I have seen in 2003.
Then I saw Teenage Caveman.
A painfully obvious cable TV production, shot on video in what looks like a national park five minutes out of LA, Teenage Caveman is awful in almost every way. Flat, boring direction, uninspired use of the camera, abysmal production values, dull attempts at titillation (in a "lots of breasts but nothing else" made for cable kind of way), a bad script that just goes nowhere, and a terrible cast... I could go on and on about how awful this film is.
The real tragedy is that the idea is an interesting one - generations after an unspecified apocalypse, a group of young neo-cavemen stumble across an old scientific installation, occupied only by two apparently young people. These two are the products of an experiment of a hundred years before, to create people who could survive the coming devastation. Predictably, their motives in taking in the young primitives are less than pure.
Aesthetically, the film is a mess. The titular teenage cavemen and cavewomen are obnoxiously clean, with perfect teeth, salon hair, and flawless skin which is liberally coated in makeup. Their clothing consists of carefully tailored rags which would not look at all out of place in a goth club or on a catwalk. It is just plain stupid. Even worse is their dialogue - completely contemporary at all times, with a complete modern vocabulary full of words that should not be known by a fifth generation primitive with no technology.
The horror makeup and gore effects are about the only competent thing about the whole film, created as they were by Stan Winston's crew. The digitally-assisted effects never really work, but the prosthetics and animatronics are decent.
In summary: do not watch this film. It is poorly-written, poorly-made, poorly-performed garbage, the worst film I have seen in 2003.
Not that I'm biased or anything...
26 October 2003
...but considering that The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath is a full-length animated feature made by a bunch of people on three continents, connected by email and FTP, none of whom had ever made an animated feature before (or a feature-length film of any kind) it is really something special.
Sure, the graphics are largely black and white line-art (provided by masterful comic artist Jason B. Thompson, by way of his five part comic series) and the animation of quite simple (probably half the movement in the film is simply panning and zooming on static images) but somehow it works.
Its first big asset is Thompson's art - imaginative, fantastic, and ambitious. His glorious panoramic vistas of dream-world locations are incredible, and despite their static features, his depictions of the many characters in the story are so good that they truly come to life. The film's second major asset is its gorgeous, haunting score, provided by underground musician Cyoakha Grace O'Manion, with some help from her band Land of the Blind. It is great music in its own right, but it complements the visuals perfectly, and gives the whole film a sense of dream awe and dread.
Add to these assets some very clever animation, that suggests far more than it actually shows, plus some very good voice performances, especially from Toren Atkinson, who provides the voice of the film's hero, Randolph Carter, as well as surprisingly professional and complex foley and sound effects work, and you are left with a film that simply should not have worked, but which works very well.
Technical issues aside, and most important of all, it is entertaining, engrossing, and sometimes even funny, playing up H. P. Lovecraft's under-recognised black humour.
The movie world needs more people like Edward Martin, who are willing to take a huge risk and produce something unique. Fans of H. P. Lovecraft owe it to themselves to see this film.
Sure, the graphics are largely black and white line-art (provided by masterful comic artist Jason B. Thompson, by way of his five part comic series) and the animation of quite simple (probably half the movement in the film is simply panning and zooming on static images) but somehow it works.
Its first big asset is Thompson's art - imaginative, fantastic, and ambitious. His glorious panoramic vistas of dream-world locations are incredible, and despite their static features, his depictions of the many characters in the story are so good that they truly come to life. The film's second major asset is its gorgeous, haunting score, provided by underground musician Cyoakha Grace O'Manion, with some help from her band Land of the Blind. It is great music in its own right, but it complements the visuals perfectly, and gives the whole film a sense of dream awe and dread.
Add to these assets some very clever animation, that suggests far more than it actually shows, plus some very good voice performances, especially from Toren Atkinson, who provides the voice of the film's hero, Randolph Carter, as well as surprisingly professional and complex foley and sound effects work, and you are left with a film that simply should not have worked, but which works very well.
Technical issues aside, and most important of all, it is entertaining, engrossing, and sometimes even funny, playing up H. P. Lovecraft's under-recognised black humour.
The movie world needs more people like Edward Martin, who are willing to take a huge risk and produce something unique. Fans of H. P. Lovecraft owe it to themselves to see this film.
Bowling for Columbine
(2002)
Moore doesn't have the answers... but should he?
1 September 2003
I have read many criticisms of this film, and they seem to boil down to two things: it is largely made up of lies or distortions of truth; and Moore fails to make any kind of solid point or answer any of the questions he raises. I cannot respond to the first claim, as I know the film certainly has some embellishments, though I am not aware of any blatant falsehoods. The second, however, is an interesting point to ponder...
Is a documentary filmmaker required to answer questions? Surely if he did, he would be regarded as being "preachy". I believe that Moore's main aim in Bowling for Columbine is to get his audience asking those questions, and seeking their own answers. Why does the USA have such a high homicide rate? Is it the guns? Is it something else? I doubt Michael Moore knows the answer, but I believe it is a very important question.
Moore isn't some kind of prophet - he just wants to make you think.
Is a documentary filmmaker required to answer questions? Surely if he did, he would be regarded as being "preachy". I believe that Moore's main aim in Bowling for Columbine is to get his audience asking those questions, and seeking their own answers. Why does the USA have such a high homicide rate? Is it the guns? Is it something else? I doubt Michael Moore knows the answer, but I believe it is a very important question.
Moore isn't some kind of prophet - he just wants to make you think.
Undead
(2003)
A must-see splatter comedy!
10 August 2003
I caught Undead's second and final Festival screening last night, and it is just fantastic. I cannot understand how a film so cheap (cost about two million Australian, as I recall) could look so incredibly good. Most of the visual effects were done on a laptop, and they are just stunning. According to one of the Spierig brothers (the identical twins who wrote, directed, and produced the film, as well as managing the effects) the film contains 305 special effects, and maybe ten of those effects shots don't quite work.
Technicalities aside, it is also damned funny, extremely gory, and a whole lot of fun. The humour is not just slapstick gore, either - there are some priceless moments of character humour and a handful of absolutely classic lines, arguably the best of which can be heard at the end of the trailer. Surprisingly, the plot is quite strong, too, with a ripper of an ending that left me deeply impressed.
It isn't without its flaws - a few gags fall flat, the dialogue can be a bit hard to hear at times, the pacing is a tad shaky, and the final reel or two could do with a little bit of fat trimmed, plus the hero of the piece is just a bit annoying, with a whole lot of dialogue that is meant to be cheesy, but gets a bit TOO cheesy more than once - but for a first film made on a shoestring, it is just incredible. We are talking about the Bad Taste of the digital age.
I know it is getting a small mainstream cinema release here in Oz in early September, and I have heard it is getting a little release in the US and UK as well. Fans of early Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, and George Romero owe it to themselves to go along and laugh themselves sick.
Technicalities aside, it is also damned funny, extremely gory, and a whole lot of fun. The humour is not just slapstick gore, either - there are some priceless moments of character humour and a handful of absolutely classic lines, arguably the best of which can be heard at the end of the trailer. Surprisingly, the plot is quite strong, too, with a ripper of an ending that left me deeply impressed.
It isn't without its flaws - a few gags fall flat, the dialogue can be a bit hard to hear at times, the pacing is a tad shaky, and the final reel or two could do with a little bit of fat trimmed, plus the hero of the piece is just a bit annoying, with a whole lot of dialogue that is meant to be cheesy, but gets a bit TOO cheesy more than once - but for a first film made on a shoestring, it is just incredible. We are talking about the Bad Taste of the digital age.
I know it is getting a small mainstream cinema release here in Oz in early September, and I have heard it is getting a little release in the US and UK as well. Fans of early Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, and George Romero owe it to themselves to go along and laugh themselves sick.
Miracle Mile
(1988)
Why have I never heard of this film before?
18 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
How on earth did such a sublime film pass under my radar for so long? While visiting a friend the other night, he mentioned that he had just received this DVD in the post that day and was dying to watch it. I had never heard of it, but he recommended it so highly I agreed to watch it.
Wow. What an amazing film.
I had no clue what the plot was about, and I think it benefits from that. If you have not seen it yet, try to avoid spoilers and stop reading these reviews! Miracle Mile's unpredictable roller-coaster plot is probably its strongest aspect, and you would probably be well-served not even reading the video or DVD case. Unlike most other films, at any point, it is impossible to guess exactly what will happen in ten minutes time, and this makes it a delight to watch.
The script is masterfully directed, and the cast are uniformly superb and perfect for their roles. Its low budget lets it down a little in its closing moments, but it is notoriously difficult to get funding for a script such as this, so the flawed effects are easily forgiveable.
Miracle Mile is gloriously non-Hollywood, one of those weird American films that feels extremely European throughout, which only serves to add to its surreal and bewildering nature. It even has a beautiful and sad love story tying it all together.
See Miracle Mile. You will love it.
Wow. What an amazing film.
I had no clue what the plot was about, and I think it benefits from that. If you have not seen it yet, try to avoid spoilers and stop reading these reviews! Miracle Mile's unpredictable roller-coaster plot is probably its strongest aspect, and you would probably be well-served not even reading the video or DVD case. Unlike most other films, at any point, it is impossible to guess exactly what will happen in ten minutes time, and this makes it a delight to watch.
The script is masterfully directed, and the cast are uniformly superb and perfect for their roles. Its low budget lets it down a little in its closing moments, but it is notoriously difficult to get funding for a script such as this, so the flawed effects are easily forgiveable.
Miracle Mile is gloriously non-Hollywood, one of those weird American films that feels extremely European throughout, which only serves to add to its surreal and bewildering nature. It even has a beautiful and sad love story tying it all together.
See Miracle Mile. You will love it.
Tell Your Friends