Change Your Image
petewhitaker
Reviews
Splice (2009)
What's the worst that can happen?
Anyone who thinks that this film is going to deal with any of the ethical issues facing science concerning the use of human DNA is going find themselves deluded. The only question asked is in the catch line: what is the worst that can happen? The science of DNA manipulation is not even hinted at; just represented both unimaginatively and unrealistically by a computer display. No long hours in the laboratory attempting to prove an hypothesis by repeatable experiments that validate the results. Instead what we get are bland statements and hard stares from Elsa Kast (Sarah Polley), which she uses to browbeat her partner Clive Nicoli (Adrien Brody) into submission.
You can trace a long history almost back to the beginning of cinema of scientists who have attempted one experiment too many when meddling with life; Frankenstein was first filmed in 1910! 'Splice' offers nothing new to the genre and demonstrates that the film-makers have learnt noting new also. The plot is so predictable with no deviation into moral or ethical considerations of the actions being considered. The ending is neither a surprise nor a twist, if you answer the question posed in the catch line then you know exactly what is coming.
The acting is unimpressive, Brody is clearly walking through his role thinking about the cheque. Every time his character seems to have a backbone he backs down or just forgets his initial opposition to the next development until of course it is too late. Sarah Polley delivers nothing impressive, just a succession of stern faces followed by smug looks and then outraged glares.
The creature itself is somewhat different, but there's no rationalisation as to how it can grow a tail with a poisoned stinger, develop gills, evolve wings and then change gender after apparently being killed. I like monsters, especially in movies, but there has to be some degree of imaginative integrity to them; not just a list of "gee wouldn't it be great if it could do this
" ideas. Also, if the audience are going to empathise with the creature then it should have some redeeming qualities, Frankenstein's monster was unfortunate, King Kong was kidnapped, Dren was just a mistake taken too far that predictably ended in violent death for almost everyone concerned. Curiously the one person who survived the climax was the one I had the least sympathy for. What's the worst that could happen? I could make the mistake of watching this film again!
Treasure Island (2012)
Good but why the changes?
Robert Louis Stevenson's classic gets another dramatic outing in this 2012 production starring comedian Eddie Izzard in the role of Long John Silver. The screenplay was written by Stewart Harcourt who made some unsubtle and to my mind unnecessary changes to the story. His altered representations of two of the major characters, Squire Trelawney and Dr Livesey, make little sense and add no extra dramatic value. Director Steve Barron works for a rather realistic representation of the story with a mixed race crew of pirates posing as honest seamen on board the Hispaniola. This helps to steer a course away from unnecessary comparisons to 'Pirates of the Caribbean'. Izzards John Silver lacks the matey easiness of Robert Newton's classic 1950 characterisation, as well as the colour and roguishness. He is believable however, and at times gives a very good performance but I never found him as threatening as Newton's Silver. Philip Glenister was excellent throughout as Capt. Smollett, the professional sailor who begins the voyage with grave misgivings but remains steadfast during all of their adventures. Perhaps the only instance of miscasting was that of Elijah Wood as Ben Gunn, not only too young but again re-written for no real advantage. Wood himself gives it a good go, there's no faulting his performance, it is just that there is again no reason behind the changes to the character. This could have been an excellent version of Treasure Island, certainly the production values are high and the cast are for the most part enjoyable but the curious move away from Stevenson's original characterizations, the change to some of their motivation, and the totally unnecessary emphasis on a 21st Century reaction to materialism, mars this version. If you have never read the novel then this might pass as an entertaining adventure film but Stewart Harcourt's adaptation looses too much of the original and criticises social conventions in such a way as to suggest a lack of historical integrity or even understanding. Fun but not a patch of the 1950 classic.