Change Your Image
OtakuPancake
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Lost in London (2017)
Innovative, ballsy idea that still managed to be a bit dull.
When Lost in London was previewed I was immediately taken with the idea. For those of you unfamiliar with it, this was billed as the world's first ever film to be shot live and broadcast into theaters simultaneously, in one big take from the streets of London. Risky, and fascinating. I was reminded of the type of audience-intense atmosphere present at the "choose your own path" interactive experiments of the 1990s. While it was in fact pulled off quite well, the film suffers from attempts at humor mostly falling flat, and a story that turns out to be not all that interesting.
The brainchild of Woody Harrelson, this is a semi-true retelling of events of a night that spiraled out of his control and landed him in prison, leaving him with some serious questions to ponder about himself, his friendships, and the direction of his life. Particularly his relationship with his wife, who kick starts his terrible evening after reading about his fling with three women in a tabloid. There are some well known names here too besides Woody, and the supporting cast absolutely carries the film with performances that far exceeded my expectations and left me marveling at how they seemed to get it just right while filming live. That more than anything else kept me interested until the end.
Owen Wilson was good as the same character that he usually plays, trying to cheer Woody up in a gypsy-themed nightclub with mixed results. I didn't really find their actor's meta- banter all that funny but it was more popular with the audience. Willie Nelson who was a starring role here appears for maybe one minute, playing a tune in Woody's prison cell and giving him some words of wisdom. The police officers were alternately funny and human, and the free- spirited girl he meets outside the nightclub was strangely alluring and provided the most unexpected laugh when she receives a face full of vomit after leaning in for the expected kiss.
What I found most surprising is that Woody, who directed, produced, and stars, gives the weakest on screen performance. He seems overwhelmed, and comes off as very self-conscious throughout. In his defense, I can easily understand why with such a daunting task. His acting had almost zero nuance however and ranges from kind of upbeat, to a bit distressed. Considering that he's in every single scene, I hoped he would pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat and give the audience something before the end, but he never really breaks out of his funk.
The film moves at a relatively fast pace and the camera work is claustrophobic, with the majority of the shots being tight to the body and allowing for only the figures of one or two people in the frame when they're not in the process of moving to another place. The picture was clear- ish and never felt cheap, but had a kind of pallor to it, a soft greyness that did betray a little glass. I'm not going to complain about the sometimes dim lighting, for what they were working with it seemed remarkably done.
Even until the final scene arrived, I was wondering if Harrelson would in fact go through with his promise to jump into the Thames if it stunk, but even with its flaws it lived up to what it tried to accomplish and manages to be an okay film. Whether or not it stands up to viewing now that the novelty has worn off may be a different story.
984: Prisoner of the Future (1982)
Confused nihilistic vision of the future.
I had never heard of this obscure title until picking it up at a run-down video rental store, but I'm glad that I didn't pass up this rare opportunity. Other than the laughably bad effects (particularly the "enforcer robots"), this film has quite a lot of entertainment value, and tells a gripping (albeit incredibly confusing) story of one man's descent into madness in a post-apocalyptic future. For the incredibly limited budget it looks to have had as a TV movie, the film is definitely effective beyond its presupposed boundaries.
Stephen Markle plays Tom Weston, an affluent businessman/politician (it is never really clear), content with the current government and his way of life. When "The Movement" (a quasi-fascistic socialist political organization that promises a future of peace) arises behind media mogul Dr. Fontayne, Weston is approached by his representatives, whom he refuses to cooperate with. Upon their rise to power, he soon finds himself thrown into a brutal futuristic prison along with several associates, where he is constantly interrogated by a sadistic warden (Don Francks) that does everything imaginable to psychologically torture him into admitting to crimes he is innocent of. The warden is terrifyingly persistent Weston is tortured day in, day out for over ten years, with no human contact, until he finally can no longer distinguish between reality and fantasy. Over the years, Weston is tantalized by the sounds of chirping birds and children playing just outside his prison cell, which he hears through a small window high up the cement wall. The only thing that keeps him going is this and the thought of rejoining his wife on the outside world.
Much of the film is revealed through flashbacks during interrogation sequences we see how Weston was implicated in a plot to overthrow "The New Order" by force due to his association with Michael Roland (David Clement), his friend and politician. It is never made clear whether or not Weston is guilty, forcing the audience to come to their own conclusions. Are we to believe that he is innocent? How do we know that his flashbacks are not simply hallucinations brought forth through suggestion? This could either be the result of inferior film-making, or an intentional construct to force the viewer to experience the same confusion that Weston experiences. I would like to think it's the latter.
Spoiler ahead: Throughout the film there are cryptic implications that the great "New World" outside the prison walls may not be everything the warden has made it out to be, and prison aides make unsettling comments about "the end." When prison guard Jeffries (Stan Wilson) enters Weston's cell, leaving the door open, he encourages him to escape, claiming that "it's over
for all of us." Weston attempts to outrun the security drones and escape this futuristic labyrinth. Finding escape to be impossible, he returns to his cell, climbing up the wall in desperation to peer out the window
to see only a barren desert, and a small speaker mounted on the outside wall, continually piping in the sounds of a once-thriving world.
Apparently this was a pilot for a Canadian television series. It's not hard to see why it failed: the plot is simply too convoluted for all but the most die-hard science fiction fans, and it's dystopian vision too bleak for the audience to be left wanting more.
Other than the aforementioned flaws, 984 (or The Tomorrow Man) is an entertaining film, and should be appreciated by fans of low budget science fiction, the post-apocalyptic, or those with a taste for unhappy endings.