Review: John Carter

Widely regarded as Disney's biggest and worst flop in recent memory, yet I actually found it very entertaining despite its CG heaviness.

Based off the classic and highly influential novel "A Princess of Mars" by Edgar Rice Burroughs (writer of the original Tarzan) this story tells of John Carter, a Civil War veteran who is transported out from battling Apache Native Americans to the surface of Mars. Once there he finds another civil war raging, involving two factions of human-like beings, a tribal race of quadruple-armed aliens, and mysterious demigods who influence these people's futures.
He finds he is naturally gifted with near super human strength due to Mars' lesser gravity and his stronger muscles, allowing him to leap tremendous distances. Carter befriends the 12-foot tall tribal Thark aliens and must quickly defend a princess and her honour to save the inhabitants from a tyrant.

This film is loaded with extraordinary, exotic and otherworldly visuals, and is certainly a unique specimen in science fiction, and one can argue that the story would not have been possible to interpret before the advent of computer generated graphics. Part of me winces at the "Star Wars Prequels" level of CG being used... but then... this isn't Star Wars, there's no history to unsettle. That, and John Carter is genuinely a fun film to watch, and is surprisingly violent! Pretty sure I caught a few arms and heads being sliced clean off!
I grew to like the Tharks through their strange relationship upon finding Carter; there's a montage of how they initially treat him (like one of their infants) which is pretty hilarious. The film's sense of humour is incredibly important and saves it from becoming a slog of meaningless jargon. The CG animation of the Tharks themselves is well done, good enough to feel some emotional connection with them.

We even have a strong female character, Princess Dejah is not only introduced to us as an inventor, but can also hold her own in a fight when she has to. Of course there's no shortage of Carter leaping through the air to save her either.
It is a rapid film; it barely stops for breath as it batters through all the lore and social structures that revolve around Mars, the action sequences are plenty, and we have to explain who Carter is, where he came from and where his loyalties lie: back on Earth, or on Mars? All of this leaves little room for villains, who are nondescript antagonists used to push the plot forward.

It is instantly recommended to anyone who is a fan of action sci-fi, while I would like to suggest it to all others. The film was poorly advertised and was let down by poor PR; the film bombed despite it being as entertaining as other Disney live-action adventures. It is sad to think there will likely be no continuation.

Additional Marshmallows: Effectively this film has one of the longest times in development, roughly 79 years, going through multiple titles and iterations, directors and casting choices. 

Will Disney use this much CG effects with the new Star Wars trilogy? Most likely. But hopefully like John Carter they can give a fuller script and story to the proceedings.

Review: Devil

Wow, things definitely go "jelly-side down" in this vacuous "horror".

So it has taken some time for me to see this film, but for those not aware of what it is about, here's the synopsis. Five strangers with questionable, variably criminal backgrounds are trapped in a office block elevator, unaware that one of them is actually the devil in disguise and coming to claim their souls.

Not actually a bad premise, I for one like films that have a narrow focus and thus build claustrophobic tension (see Phone Booth) however... the film has to actually do it right.

Devil, does not. Not by a long shot.

So asides the film being called Devil and one can assume from there what we are dealing with, the film begins with what appears to be the film shot accidentally upside down... An upside down cityscape rolls by during the credits until someone realises the mistake and fixes it.
Unfortunately this is the one bit that is least predictable. From then on the audience is given a lot of hand-holding as our paranoid, trapped victims become even less trusting of each other and an investigator tries to resolve the problem from the outside. However, straight off the bat, we are shown THE DEVIL, a blatantly obvious face filling the security camera feed, designed to bamboozle the security staff and to tell us there's absolutely no doubt for the rest of the film. Nope, it is most certainly the devil, the title isn't a misguiding play on words and there's no hidden subtext about the human animal.

The characters themselves are inhuman. One scene involves one of them bravely opening the top hatch to get into the elevator shaft, only for the others to scream hysterically "He's trying to escape!!" and dragged him back in. Escape, but aren't they all wanting out? Why was there a delay to them noticing, he wasn't exactly subtle, he told them he was going out!
This film reminds me of Frozen in its levels of stupidity, and we haven't even mentioned the guard tossing the jellied toast on the floor to prove the devil is about.

By tomorrow I will have forgotten Devil, but as something "from the mind of" M. Night Shyamalan and directed by the man who did the American remake of REC... what would you expect. It isn't immersive, it isn't clever, it isn't even unintentionally funny, its just nonexistent.

Additional Marshmallows: Just don't bother asking the question: Why? One of the least convincing portrayals of The Devil I've ever seen.

Review: The Thing (2011)

The one thing this remake has going for it is that it can be passed off as a prequel. Whether it capitalizes on this or not is another matter...

Set in 1982 (the year John Carpenter's original The Thing was set and released) 2011's The Thing tells the story of the unfortunate group of scientists who uncovered a buried alien ship and alien corpse in Antarctica that worked as a precursor to the events of the original film. The nature of the remake is clear as events are almost identical in both films.

Now I wasn't in love with the original film; it was a distracting experience with great physical monster effects that do stay in my mind to this day (six years on) but as a story... I had seen it before. So in saying that, I don't mind this being a remake/prequel; it certainly made me want to watch the original again, and it isn't a straight up copy (a different title would have been nice!)
However the film itself, isn't exactly ground breaking. Its pacing is way too fast and we have precious little time to get to know the characters (I know I was giving them names: Bearded Man 1, Bearded Man 2, etc) and when this happens you are merely looking at the monster's menu. There was room for story expansion here, but the film is too frantic to bother and does not build tension.

The creature effects... are hit and miss. Naturally they are CG and I will admit some of the "full frontal" transformations are pretty gross, but like others have said you do see the monster(s) too frequently; CG gives the director too much liberty and it costs them suspense and atmosphere. It started looking like video game monsters, from Resident Evil and the like. There are some stationary practical models, but for better or worse everything else is computer generated.
It is the bare bones of a "creature feature", it could have done with slowing down the pace, get some characters developed or story expanded for its "sequel", or at the very least for building some atmosphere.
If you like monster-fests, you can do worse. I certainly didn't hate it; my initial opinion had it pegged as a four cups of cocoa, but as it went on... it let itself down.

Review: Another Earth

A quiet, emotive science fiction drama exploring the human condition of self-perception and fate.
So a nice and easy review to write...

I want to really like Another Earth, it has a lot of the elements I like, the principle one being that its a science fiction piece without being "science fiction".
Entirely from one person's perspective we see a world changing event when a replica Earth appears in the sky above. We don't see nations in discussion, or politicians or bigwigs or military, we see how this affects Rhona, one girl in the world.
On the night this "other Earth" appears, she loses control of her car and crashes into the car of a man and his family. His wife and son are killed instantly, while he is put into a coma for four years. Rhona is imprisoned for those four years, and we see her after her release trying to deal with her guilt and find forgiveness.

This is not your typical science fiction; it has a gentle pace and slow direction allowing for scenes and moods to seep in, characters are lost in thought more than speaking openly. We see Rhona's relationship with the man, John, develop as she continuously postpones telling him that she caused the accident, this makes up the bulk of the film.

Unfortunately... there are some bumps in the road that I couldn't believe. The one that particularly killed the film's immersion for me was Rhona's sudden relationship with John... She killed his entire family, he lives as a drunken recluse, his career as a popular composer was destroyed, he told her he had to be restrained from looking for the culprit in case of what he might do. Yes, jumping into bed with him is the perfectly human thing to do.
(There are other things, like how we would happily send any one up into space to make first contact, make websites so anyone can apply. In fact being socially weird or even a convict would be a positive boon! I... don't think that would happen.)

You could read into it more, how Rhona isn't a perfect being and that no one is, and that the driving force behind the film is the reflective nature we can have. The "other Earth" inspires people to imagine if the same choices and mistakes were made there as they were here, and if you were to talk to yourself would you forgive yourself?
This inner concept is very interesting, but the film chooses to let the audience decide for itself, leaving on a tantalizing ending to spark debate. Probably the best, since it gives us the viewer time to reflect and use our own perspective.

It is a head-scratcher; a film to make you think and consider yourself and the world around you. It has a few bumps in the story that definitely irked me, which risked losing me on the more subtle messages being given.

Additional Marshmallows: The most believable element in this scenario is what we call the second Earth that magically appeared before us. "Earth 2". It is so drab and pathetically unimaginative that it would happen!

Review: The Town

A simple cops'n'robbers flick that thinks it carries the emotional weight of a drama but instead stumbles all over the place.

The Town is directed and has its screenplay co-written by and stars Ben Afleck, a man determined to make his mark in these areas and well... you have to give him credit for trying. At least you can say his robbery heist film is better than Statham's The Bank Job...
Having been unfortunately brought up in a crime-ridden neighbourhood, Doug MacRay (Afleck) is a big-time criminal; raiding banks and bank vans for a living. After kidnapping a bank manager's assistant only to let her go (with the best intentions...) he finds her again and hopes to find salvation and a better future with her.
Yeah, good luck with that.

Heist and robbery films are frequent, so you need bankable characters (pun intended) to make it worth while. Or indeed good action sequences. The Town puts all its money on the old adage: "honour among thieves", unfortunately it forgot to make the thieves at all likable; I wasn't cheering for them, or even Doug himself. I was one-hundred percent behind the eeeevil FBI man who was dedicated to catching them. The film did nothing to convince me these men deserved redemption.

The film lost me when Claire (the damsel) falls for Doug and doesn't realise he was the masked man at the bank despite her saying: "I could identify them by their voices" straight to his face. All the way through a physical relationship, she never twigged. She needed the FBI to tell her. Duh.

There is some good vehicular action in the film though, one stand out scene involves the thieves making a poor getaway and having to resort to a moving gun battle through narrow streets. It is very well shot and has good kinetic force... it is just a shame the characters are wearing gormless nun masks while doing it!

-Spoilers about the ending follow-

Doug himself comes across as dim-witted, yet apparently calls the shots within their group. You may call spoilers on this next part, but by the end of the film he is virtually unscathed from all the vigilante justice and outright crime he has committed. Okay, so he didn't get the girl... but he did kidnap her, I wouldn't want her to be with him, and that isn't a punishment, that's poetic justice. Claire too, effectively becomes an accomplice and sees no ramifications for aiding his escape. Money, public money from a public bank, is lost forever, spent and lost (okay, spent on a public service, but the point is... that's the people's money!)

- Spoilers over -

The Town ultimately fails as the emotionally weighted drama that it wants to be. I didn't relate or feel for the characters I was supposed to, and even if that was somehow intentional, the ending didn't give the alternate satisfaction either! I was apparently rooting for the bad guys the entire time...

Review: The Guard

The "buddy cop movie" with a sarcastic twist.

When a small Irish community becomes a staging area for a trio of notorious serial killers it is up to local guard Gerry Boyle (Brendan Gleeson) to stop them. A bluntly spoken officer who knows exactly how far he can bend the law for his own self satisfaction without it breaking. He is however aided by an officer of the FBI (Don Cheadle) who wants nothing more than to follow the rule book. I sense awkwardness!

The film has an incredibly simple premise: cops and robbers, and the enjoyment comes from Gleeson's character Gerry and watching how he copes with the escalating dangers he faces here. At times he seems bumbling, other times he seems derailed (like the Irish version of Nicolas Cage's character in Bad Lieutenant) but ultimately, through the dialogue with Cheadle's character, we see he is actually a very smart and talented police officer.

The villains are cardboard cut outs, with type-cast Mark Strong and Liam Cunningham providing all the antagonizing but few laughs. Gerry Boyle's story slows down with the subplot of his ageing and dying mother, which while it does give his character more humanity (and less like a complete sociopath) and give the finale more punch, it ultimately felt a little tacked on.

Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle's scenes are great, and the climax of the movie is rewarding enough, the film itself falling between Hot Fuzz and In Bruges. It isn't perfect; the film's comedy relies heavily upon Irish jokes and Cheadle's "fish-out-of-water" African American. If you are well versed in this sort of thing, you might find The Guard a bore, but I enjoyed it for the most part.

Saga Review: Twilight?

Hahaha, no.

Did you really think I was going to waste eight hours of my life watching the four Twilight films in preparation for Breaking Dawn Part 2? I may watch a lot of movies, but I sure as hell am not going there.

It isn't like I've not considered it either... oh I have, just so I could back up my arguments, but having heard so many people's opinions, people I trust, I know without doubt that watching this series would only be an exercise in determining what order they would go in at the bottom of my Worst Films of the Year list!

All you need to know is that Twilight offends me in so many areas that I hold dear, the principle areas being in fiction writing and film.

So what can I do instead of ranting like everyone else with a keyboard can? Well, I chose a very pleasant alternative, and I offer it to you too. Vampires do not sparkle, forget Twilight; because for the four films I could have reviewed, I give you four films that are actually about vampires.

If you like Twilight, I offer some education in both vampires and sanity.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

It would be a crime to forget Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula from 1992, the director of the Godfather gives us a near definitive tale of Dracula, as a man and as a monster.

Closely following the novel by Bram Stoker, the film sees the demise of the Romanian Vlad the Impaler (Gary Oldman) transforming him into Dracula, a creature of the night who can change shape, seduce and murder and “turn” others into vampires. Seeking one as beautiful as his dead wife, he is led to London and preys upon Mina (Winona Ryder) and killing anyone else in his way.

Perhaps one of the most iconic horror films of the early 1990s, Dracula was regarded too gory for cinema and had to be cut after tests screenings, the film may have dated somewhat but still retains a massive amount of atmosphere. It is an eerie, theatrical piece; the camera work Coppola uses is creative, relying greatly on composition and shot transitions. Coppola actually fired his initial special effects crews for their insistence on using digital effects, hiring instead his own son for making the effects practically. Nowadays, this decision gives the film an even more unsettling mood! Dracula’s powers are wonderfully portrayed; from clever uses of reflections (or lack thereof!) to the weird disembodied shadow play.

Gary Oldman is fantastic as Dracula and Vlad; he really gets into the role and the numerous beastly transformations the character takes on. Yes, Oldman went through the make-up requirements in all but one occasion! Antony Hopkins as the sociopath Van Helsing is greatly entertaining, making the man near demented with his brilliance and obsession.

Unfortunately, there is one thing wrong, and that was Coppola’s decision to hire Keanu Reeves as the hero Jonathan Harper, who is captured within Dracula’s castle. He hired him for his looks, and that was about all he got! Comparisons of Reeves’ absence performance here and Kristen Stewart’s current career would be ripe for the picking! Reeves has admitted he was never happy with his performance, claiming he was tired from working multiple film projects at the time of shooting.

I was eight when Dracula was released, and while it was a while before I could see it, watching it again now is a very nostalgic experience. It is a film filled with blood, monsters, sex and seduction. I still enjoy it nowadays, even with some of its dodgy accents!

Interview with the Vampire (1994)

If you want the definitive story of vampires, what they are, what it means to become one and the turmoil and crazed antics that go with the myth, look no further than Interview with the Vampire. This cannot be stated anymore bluntly!

A man in San Francisco finds himself interviewing a soul-searching vampire named Louis (Brad Pitt) who is seeking closure to centuries of turmoil after being turned into a creature of the night by a malicious vampire called Lestat.

Louis tells his story that begins in 1791, when he is seeking an end to his vacuous mortal life, only to discover that the immortal life given him is not as rewarding as he had hoped. We see Louis struggle with his new nature and his attempts to live without killing innocents and learn what he can about his new existence. In stark contrast, we see the flamboyant and selfish Lestat relishing the life of a seductive murderer. The unlikely duo sire a young girl (fresh faced starlet Kirsten Dunst, who acts equally as well as her heavyweight co-stars!) and create a bloodied family, only for their differing natures to finally drive them apart.

Based off the popular novel of the same name (author Anne Rice even wrote the film’s screenplay!) the film is excellent and goes through every piece of vampire lore and mythos with a fine-tooth comb. It is studious and practical, witty with black humour (Tom Cruise is clearly enjoying himself, vanishing into the role of the villain!) and insightful about immortality when it needs to be; seeing these characters journey through time, ageless, adapting (or perhaps not) to new societies is fascinating. There is plenty of action too, the film’s climax is hellish and incredible to watch.

Vampires are killers by nature, and the film has a lot of respect for their history and lore, while having a subtle underlying humour. The creatures have never been so well depicted, and may never be again.

The Lost Boys (1987)

A movie completely trapped in the 1980s, but it is great entertainment!

When a mother and her two sons move to California the eldest son Michael becomes fascinated by a group of bikers and the girl in their midst, while his younger brother meets two strange boys who are convinced a coven of vampires are the cause behind their town’s missing children.

There is a strong sense after watching this film that it inspired the look and feel of Joss Whedon’s television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the most obvious being the near identical vampire makeup. The Joel Schumacher film has a lot of comedic beats, especially around the young Sam and the two vampire hunting boys; reminds me of 1985s The Goonies. A young Kiefer Sutherland plays an excellent vampire though, adding to the film some intensity and ferocity.

It takes a bit of time to get going perhaps; made more so nowadays with the heaps of 1980s pop culture references that gush from the dialogue. It is a film of two halves for the most part; we have Michael’s torn romance with Star, which gets him involved with the biker gang, and the goofy antics of children hunting vampires. Stick through it though, because the film’s final act is great fun as these elements of horror and comedy crash together! “No two vampires are alike” it is explained when talking about how vampires die. How true!

An iconic 1980s film for sure, but in terms of a teenage vampire film, this one is done right! Sometimes a comedic edge is needed to make these stories more accessible.

Blade (1998)

Only four years after the traditional vampire story was told by Interview, Blade arrives and not only pulls the creatures into the next century but delivers an adult-driven comic book adaptation. (1997 seeing the dreadful Batman & Robin)

With the cities rife with vampires and the upper hierarchies of society controlled by them, Blade seeks to destroy them. He is known as “The daywalker” a man born with vampire strengths but none of their weaknesses.

Credit is due to the late nineties and early 2000s, Blade demonstrates exceptional pacing and atmosphere as well as excellent fight scenes! Most people still remember the iconic opening scenes of the film featuring Blade interrupting a vampire rave beneath showers of blood. It should be noted that the film is written by David S. Goyer, who would go on to write the stories for The Dark Knight film trilogy.

Wesley Snipes as Blade is vastly entertaining, playing a superhero that doesn’t live by any code or conduct; he simply enjoys running in and slaughtering as many vampires as possible, looking damn good while doing it. Cannot forget the shades! While he does let loose some wisecracks, Blade is a quiet protagonist, and his brooding nature is amplified by the film’s own morose atmosphere; it knows when to stop ripping people’s throats out and tone things down.

After Blade there would be a tidal wave of vampire movies set in today’s world, following the film’s clever use of high-tech gadgetry to fight and explain the vampire myth, including Underworld, Daybreakers as well as its own two sequels.

It is bloody, violent and executed extremely well in terms of blockbusters. Blade should be remembered as one of the best dark comic book movies.

Now I know, there are plenty of other vampire films that deserve reviews... and I had a hard time choosing only four, but I chose these because they stick in my mind as definitive and each of them display different ways vampires can be portrayed well.

Others I wanted to list:
Nosferatu - Of course, only the original vampire movie could suffice, a definite education in both film history and vampire lore.
Cronos - From my favourite director Guillermo Del Toro, Cronos isn't technically about vampires, but it has the exact same themes and addresses the desire of immortality better than any film I've seen.
Dracula (1931) - The classic Dracula movie with Bela Lagosi, while famous I didn't think it was prominent enough in the case of "versus Twilight" as the others.

Of course there are others like Fright Night, Daybreakers and Underworld, as well as Blade 2 which I hold in high regard (Del Toro's directing again!). Also Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, especially its second season, is incredibly good and I recommend anyone who hasn't watched it to do so. It goes through the same sort of relationship issues as Twilight only with the good sense of keeping with the lore!

So, let's celebrate "the forgetting of Twilight". Let's celebrate by remembering what vampires were and always should be; heartless killers and predators that lurk in the shadows. They deserve to be remembered as one of the most calculating and intelligent monsters, to be feared and not swooned over! That is what's called missing the point.