Review: Red Lights

With three excellent actors seemingly bringing their A-game, the only trinity found while watching Red Lights is a confusing, messy and poorly written tedium.

A team of paranormal investigators who study mediums to debunk them as frauds take on a renowned psychic who appears to channel real supernatural powers. Cillian Murphy, Sigourney Weaver and Robert De Niro star.

I'm sad to say that I had wanted to see this in the cinema, in fact I only missed it by a few days, but thankfully I never did. While the stars involved are excellent (I may be biased, they are three of my favourites all in one place!) the script and screenplay is phenomenally poor.
Immediately we are accosted by some of the laziest exposition writing I've heard in a long while, to the degree that actors arrive into a scene and dump a huge pile of inhuman dialogue (this is my belief system, these are my failings, etc). The film continues from here without a real sense of identity; is this an investigative thriller, is this a paranormal and supernatural horror? When it appears to settle on one, its script becomes impenetrable jargon... perhaps I was nodding off, but I barely knew what was going on due to the existential crisis that was happening before my eyes.

Its ending reminded me of the other disappointing film The Number 23; with the film so unrelentingly nebulous and unexplained the so-called "twist" doesn't come off as surprising at all! Such utter uncontrolled madness means only a mad resolution would do. 

The only mystery that holds in the viewers mind while watching Red Lights is how the director (Rodrigo Cortes - director of the remarkable Buried) convinced these three talented actors to sign up with such a script!
Like I say, the actors give it their best shot, I didn't feel unconvinced by any of them except for the fact I had no idea what was happening to them. Unless you really, really, really like any or all three of them, I'd probably tell you to give Red Lights a miss.

"You only see what you want to believe"? I guess I only want to believe that you have no idea what you are doing.

Review: Rise of the Guardians (2D)

The Avengers Assemble with Santa Claus? It is a ridiculous concept, yet Rise of the Guardians is so nice to look at and has enough smart dialogue to rise from mediocrity.

Our story follows Jack Frost, a newly awoken "Guardian", a Guardian is one of the many mythical characters from fairy tales who do indeed exist, and protect the children of Earth from evil. The young Jack must discover his true potential to help Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Sandman battle the Boogeyman known as Pitch Black.

The film is a straight up action movie; it barely stops for breath! Since we follow Jack and his impish antics merge with the quirky otherworld of the Guardians (rather than following a human child's perspective, for example) and the story becomes a mash of dazzling visuals and quite excellent animation. The frost effects are exceptionally well done.

The characters are all instantly enjoyable and very unique. Frost himself is young and impressionable, Huge Jackman plays the unlikely role of the Australian Easter Bunny (!!) while the Tooth Fairy proves to be most compelling. However, special mention has to be given to Santa, a Russian Santa! He's a jolly bruiser. The Guardians relationship with the human world is interesting too and how, like the Greek gods of Olympus have been depicted, rely on human belief to sustain their very existence. This is balanced well with the happy-go-lucky antics the Guardians have with children! There are genuinely funny moments and quips throughout the film.

So what's wrong with Rise of the Guardians? It really is a frantic overflow of visuals, beautiful visuals, but there isn't much meat to the characters' dilemmas, at least these aren't played out as fully as they could have been. Jack Frost is regarded as a "neutral party" only... he is clearly one of the good guys. The villain Pitch Black felt pushed aside, and while he was threatening (at least when compared to the fleshed-out, adorable heroes and their sidekicks) I felt genuinely sorry for him by the end.
Another thing that was a little pestering was some lack of consistency with the fictional "lore". Guardians have no power when no one believes in them (to the point where humans cannot see them) our heroes are seen severely weakened and unable to fight later on. Yet Jack Frost as a new Guardian (no belief; cannot be seen by humans) has the power to repel Pitch Black immediately. No explanation.

But, it is a good fun romp! Don't be put off by the laughable concept, Guardians is a fun ride with a ton of creative visuals and loads of excellent designs. Its no How to Train Your Dragon, but with snappy dialogue and the chance to show loved characters in a new light, it is harmless entertainment.

Additional Marshmallows: While I did not see this in 3D, I can say that it didn't suffer from "gimmick" shots in 2D; I wasn't punished for seeing this film normally! That said, I could imagine it looking good in 3D, there are a lot of sweeping aerial shots that allow for depth-of-field, and plenty of particle effects that can be pushed forward nicely.

Review: Argo

In 1980 a top secret operation was carried out by the CIA to rescue civilians from a revolutionary movement in Iran. The story was declassified only recently, and Argo tells the principle story of how one man's unlikely plan was the only option.

The film's title Argo, is the title of a science fiction film script that was never put into production yet was the linchpin of the CIA operation. Tony Mendez (Ben Afleck) would go to Iran, find the six American Embassy workers in hiding, and give them safe passage out of the country under the guise of the film's production executives.

Putting aside the film's obvious credibility as an eye-opening true story, it is a solid piece of film making to boot! I can't say I've been bothered about Afleck's struggling career as director and actor (The Town was sorely lacking) but with Argo he appears to be maturing and gives this serious historical account an honest telling. It isn't Hollywood or glamorous; it is shot extremely well, using a lot of retro set design and costume design, as well as - presumably - television footage from the original News coverage.

Bonus points for Afleck's rather silent protagonist. If you don't like his acting, he has given himself the least to do. While Tony Mendez has family and he is risking his life, Afleck's mood throughout the film is delivered with stony stares and control (he has to though; the character is leading six paranoid strangers on a wild, dangerous mission). It is clear they did a precise job casting each of the characters involved, very good doppelgangers... except for Afleck. 

It is a grim affair to be sure, we see Iran in a state of conflicted identity and merciless prejudice, yet the film does have moments of relaxation, after all, they are pretending to shoot a fake science fiction movie! Enter John Goodman as John Chambers (real life film make-up artist legend, who had worked on Planet of the Apes and Star Trek, and before that making prosthetics for war veterans) who gives some great tasteful comedy relief.

It is an intense ride towards the end; the last twenty minutes are fraught with paranoia and fearful glances as the group try to escape. (The film made me think of a contemporary The Great Escape) It has great pacing, its two hour run time flies by.

It is an insightful and intense thriller, and isn't just Afleck's best effort but also an excellent film in general.

Review: End of Watch

A slice of life from the perspective of two American police officers on patrol as they encounter increasing dangers, proves to be a hard edged reality tale but has some irksome direction.

Ex-Marine police officer Brian Taylor (Jake Gylhenhaal) dreams of having a family, while his squad partner Mike Zavala teases him with the easy life he has with his own. They are cocky, self-assured officers whose frequency of success has made them extremely efficient if a little unorthodox. But when a drug cartel moves in on their neighborhood unseen, they could find the ground opening beneath their feet.

End of Watch is from Training Day director David Ayer, and both films rely upon seeing our character talk and exchange banter within a squad car. Brian and Mike have great chemistry, and you quickly appreciate their friendship and police "brothers-in-arms" relationship. There are a lot of American police films out there, and most of them fall into cliche and pitfalls (see Brooklyn's Finest for examples of all the cliches in one place!) but the honest and glamour-less nature of End of Watch makes it insightful rather than painful. It paints a picture of the human beings behind the guns and badges, and the dangers they are constantly in.

Unfortunately, the filmmakers decided on using a "found footage", "recorded footage" shaky camera style... Sigh... It is quite alarming how I'm sick of this now. Brian, for little reason other than "I'm making a movie", fits himself and Mike with cameras on their uniforms and carries around a camcorder. While this does make it a unique police film, it is either used too much or ineffectively. The number of times the film does shaky-cam when it isn't from a character's camera, or is from a direction that could be... but actually isn't, since we see a subsequent shot showing no camera being held. It constantly bothered me as I was asking "Who's holding the camera now?"
I had myself a quiet giggle as even the drug cartel guys were filming themselves all the time too. Really? Is everyone out and about with camcorders these days?

If the film hadn't been in this format (and the fact that they were recording had little to no significance means it didn't need to be) it would have been a solid police drama. One really worth recommending! The characters are involved, the action is intense when it happens (and it happens suddenly) and the ending is so un-Hollywood its great!

It was an okay watch, it did feel a little bit like "TV Cops" due to the stupid shaky camera. If you want to see something new from American police dramas, you could do worse.

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.