Review: The Men Who Stare at Goats

Having just seen The Monuments Men, I opted to find another unorthodox "war film" starring George Clooney. This time though, it was a lot of fun!

Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) is a reporter out to prove himself to his cheating girlfriend, and may have found the story to make a name for himself. Lyn Cassady (George Clooney) was once a military officer who was trained in psychic warfare as part of "The New Earth Army". In following Cassady, Bob must travel to Iraq and discover whether the story is true or utter lunacy.

The film opens with the teasing text: More of this is true than you would believe. That is exactly how this entire film plays out, in a constant state of egging you on, testing how far you can believe a real military organisation would go to win a war.
A lot of the comedy comes from bending your suspension of disbelief, and the deadpan, honest delivery of so much nonsense. The root of the story, for example, is that the American military decide to start researching into psychic powers because the Russians had begun similar tests. Tests the Russians begun because the Americans had attempted it first... which wasn't the case at all; it was a French hoax. Eventually entire divisions were created and funded for the development of real psychic powers!

Enter Jeff Bridges as Bill Django, a Vietnam veteran who started the project and inspired Lyn to be come a "Warrior Monk", or "Jedi", through military practices more closely resembling a hippie movement! Believing they can walk through walls, stare animals to death, being able to remote view distant places and will people into submission.
Bob is unfortunately stranded in wartorn Iraq with Lyn, living with the man's delusions while trying to discover if any of it is in fact true!

The film is a bizarre, oddball experience but seen through the sane lense of McGregor's character. Had this film been directed by Terry Gilliam or The Coen Brothers it would have been a surrealist experience, but as it stands it is a comedy simply about the characters. Clooney delivers some great lines, true nonsense yet given with such deadpan sincerity. Bridges, of course, chews the scenery and has a riot as a new age pacifist, and it is hard to restrain the giggles when Ewan McGregor asks, with a straight face, "What is a Jedi warrior?"

I definitely enjoyed it. It isn't a war film, but it encapsulates a lot of the lunacy and blind convictions that people can have in times of crisis. It is a great example of actors delivering so much humour with such conviction.
It is good fun, full of familiar faces, and far from the norm!

 
 

Banter: Compare and Contrast

So I finally have some time off to talk about this.

I have had some criticism about my opinion regarding remakes, and this post has been a long time in the making.

I hate remakes. "Hate" may be a strong word, and I am well aware that there are exceptions and examples that blur the lines of what isn't acceptable... but for the most part remakes/reboots/re-envisioning, or whatever you want to call them, are dreadful, unnecessary cash-ins that lack all sense of respect or creativity.

Let's go head first into the most recent debacle:

RoboCop.

The 1987 original was not based off existing source material, it was not an adaptation, it was the film industry (and a pioneering screenwriter's) unique and original story. It was popular too! Spinning off two sequels (of questionable quality) a kids cartoon, a toyline and a television show. All from a screenplay no one had any preconceptions for. All from a script that could have failed, bombed and to never resurface.
Why? Because it was given its own personality. Director Paul Verhoeven is an artist with a distinct style, elevating Robocop above the rest, and allowing its message to be remembered and cherished over the decades.

RoboCop 2014 on the other hand. Sure, it is reminding us how popular the original is by merely existing, it is as much a tribute as the original's sequels (and about as good).
And of course, the original still exists, why be bothered about a new interpretation?

Well asides from it being generally a BAD movie, I'll tell you.

Do we honestly believe that RoboCop 2014 will be remembered three decades on, in 2044, as fondly as the Paul Verhoeven version was? Does a skeptical, cynical audience going in to see a film only to come out saying things like: "Well, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be" really a testament to memorable, masterful film making?
No! It most certainly is not.
I ask again, will anyone care, quote or remember RoboCop 2014 in the year 2044? Sure, the kids who went to see it might. In the same way I hold the original to my heart. But you want to know the difference there?
RoboCop 1987 was an 18, an R-rated film. I had to wait to experience it. RoboCop 2014 is a bland 12A experience. A kid getting it immediately has none of the anticipation, or any of the gleeful daring of simply getting to watch it.

In 2050 when we look back at the film history between the years of 2000 and 2020 what will we say for it as a medium? Oh, well they adapted comicbooks, they copied and remade creative properties, they even rebooted adaptations not five years old (cough, Spider-man, cough). Is that a good legacy to remember?

Need another example?
Remember the Total Recall remake only two years ago? No? It had Colin Farrell in it. No? With the crazy elevator-thing that went through the centre of the Earth? Nothing? Point made.

Of course, these two are money spinners, plain and simple. Total Recall 2012 had the opportunity to follow Phillip K. Dick's original book "We Can Remember it for You Wholesale" more closely than the Schwarzenegger film. But it decided to lazily remake the existing film. Best to try and hit average than to burn out trying to be your own adaptation, right?

I've yet to watch the Spike Lee Oldboy remake... I hold the original Chan-wook Park film in such high regard... but from the overwhelming amounts of criticism that panned the remake before it had even released makes my point for me.
(I will watch it... one day... you need my opinion, after all.)
The same goes for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Funny. The original Swedish film managed to weave the entire trilogy together with a remarkable sense of continuity, something rarely seen in even the most popular trilogies and sagas.
How many entries of the trilogy did the David Fincher remake get through?
...
Oh... Oh I see, just the one? No worries; you join my pile of ammunition too.

(Don't even get me started on how those two examples are merely because people are too lazy to read subtitles). 


Now at this point I could keep going and skirt around what many of you are now arguing against me with. But I will address it, don't worry:

Judge Dredd / Dredd.

Possibly the biggest exception to any rule. But hear me out.

Sylvester Stallone's 1995 Judge Dredd is awful.
Now sure it has been long enough that the film has entered "So bad its good" territory, but that doesn't ignore the fact that it is an awful film. It is awful in how it doesn't respect the source material, and as a result it has fallen into obscurity.

2012's Dredd was a necessary remake. The source is excellent and lends itself to film interpretation, and director Pete Travis and actor Karl Urban obviously saw it as such. What we got is so far removed from the 1995 version (Judge Dredd was a 15, though by today's standards it could easily be a 12A, while Dredd is very, very much an 18 or R-rating!) that they are almost indistinguishable.

They didn't "remake" Judge Dredd, they made a more faithful adaptation of the source.

People argue with me that "You shouldn't compare" the remake to the original. But how can you not? Dredd by its own merits is an incredible achievement, but it earns that by being so much better than the 1995 film, no? Look who's comparing now.
I insist that when it comes to remakes or reboots, comparison is absolutely vital. If not, then your Total Recalls, RoboCops, Spider-Man-Infinitums will not stop, and we will end up with a creative medium that simply regurgitates itself, making obscene profits from an audience rolling over and mumbling: "Eh, it wasn't too bad."

Finally, people ask me what could be done instead?
I'm certain that there are many, many, many original screenplays out there that Hollywood outright ignores in preference for remaking classics. Screenplays written by talented individuals who deserve recognition and/or a visionary director to make their dream come to life. Your RoboCops of the 1980s. Something fresh and exciting with new characters and new worlds, to define a generation with and make new franchises with.
Even if it is a screenplay even remotely similar to an existing property, that is better than straight up remaking that property. You want an example of that concept? How about instead of remaking RoboCop, why not have a soldier from the wars in the middle east come home terribly wounded only to be reborn as a half-man, half-machine soldier? Why not? Relevant to the times, new characters, new settings. New franchise.

No. That wouldn't work, I hear you cry. Everyone will know it is a rip-off RoboCop.

You see this original film from 1991? One of the first major films from Academy award winning director Kathryn Bigelow? Point Break?
It could be regarded as the original to this:

It is a common comparison, but no one cries that The Fast and the Furious is just a rip off of Point Break, do they? No, of course not. What happened to this very similar "remake"? Did it fade off into obscurity? No, it just made millions, had video games franchises, and inspired just six sequels.
(by the way, there's only ten years between these two films)

Does my belief in an original screenplay similar to RoboCop doing better than a direct remake seem so ridiculous now?

And just to end this with a big, fat nail in the coffin...

Point Break is getting a remake next year.

Review: The Monuments Men

The Monuments Men is less of a heist film and more of a casual stroll through a war museum.

Towards the end of World War Two, with Allied forces pushing into Germany and the Russians also bearing down on Europe, one officer forms a small unit of scholars to go into dangerous areas and recover priceless art stolen by the Nazis during the occupation.

George Clooney both stars as our lead and directs the film, and honestly he might want to consider sticking with the acting.

That's not to say the film is without merit. As a story it is worth telling; I am sure that many people will be unaware of Hitler's possessive nature towards all European art and sculpture, or how valuable these treasures really are to society as a whole. I commend the film for having the decent budget, production value and stars given to such an overlooked aspect of the war.
Also being set after the major events in the war is quite unique; our characters reaching the Normandy beaches long after the fighting has ended, had a certain quality to it.

But... it really isn't as good as the sum of its parts, and the film becomes a muddled, cliche bore.

Clooney's film has some really unpleasant editing choices. Scenes come and go so quickly at times that we cease to feel any reason for them, or are oddly thrown in while another scene unfolds. Sure you can do this to add tension, but here it is done so many times (and with a multitude of date stamps, as if paranoid we will forget this is set during 1943!)
There are a lot of names in this film, but not a whole lot to do with them. The comedy elements are often forced, at least when in subsequent scenes characters are being killed off!
Did we really need Bill Murray's character making his own beef jerky, only to require a tooth removed because of eating it?

I went into the film with reduced expectations, yet I still felt the film was poorly executed and without clear focus. Make the film about finding lost paintings and rescuing them from a desolated Europe, or make a comedy about it. You can't easily have both. Why waste time with half-hearted character development (Do you think the horse would like a cigarette??) and show us the story. No, I didn't feel anything for any of the characters; the film simply didn't tell me anything about them. Not really. The one soldier's death which becomes a means to rally the others together... I barely even knew the guy! He was in the background while Damon and Clooney pretended the film was Ocean's World War Two.

Ach. It had good intentions, and it is obviously a subject Clooney personally wanted to do, but god is it forgetful. It would work as a forty-minute television documentary, not a star-studded feature film.

  
Additional Marshmallows: Damon's character James had a funny schtick about being unable to speak French though. Subtitles and all.  

Review: Welcome to the Punch

I went in looking for a stylish action crime caper. I got that, unfortunately I didn't get anything more.

Welcome to the Punch follows a grudge between a high priority criminal Jacob (Mark Strong) and a patriotic cop Max (James McAvoy). But when they are both targeted by a shadowy adversary, they have to join forces and help one another.

The most impressive part of the film is its intention to build atmosphere and to have good cinematography and a good soundtrack. It speaks less in words and more in action, a lot of the character development becoming moody, morose scenes instead of real exposition. The action is decent and well filmed; there's no shaky cam and the gun play is frequently slow motion when it feels required.

Its style is all that possibly save it.

Wouldn't it have been more unique had Mark Strong played the vigilant police officer and McAvoy played the criminal? As it stands the actors fall into by-the-numbers roles that we have seen them in before, and there isn't much to cling on to or be compelled by. Add to this a weak storyline that barely even fills the ninety minute run time. Both characters have significant others who are vulnerable: Strong has his son, McAvoy has his partner... I can't think what might happen to these characters. And with so few other characters to choose from, your "mysterious" villain is quite obvious.

I wanted there to be more to Welcome to the Punch; I didn't get the involving storyline or compelling characters that make good police thrillers work... I did get the style though. A modern, glossy yet gritty, blue-tinted shooter. At least I can appreciate this over the disgruntled, growling The Sweeney.

  

Review: The Lego Movie (3D)

Utter lunacy!

As if progressing from such experiences as Scott Pilgrim and Wreck-It Ralph, The Lego Movie fully embraces its decision to simple exist that what we get is magical, insane, inspiring, childish and so unbelievably happy. I had a stupid, stupid grin on my face constantly.

Emmett is a construction worker living in a world of regimented order, social control and live literally by the book (they have instruction manuals on how to live.) But when an evil tyrant called Lord Business looks to glue their world together, he discovers that a prophecy deems him “The Special” and will save the world from a fate worse than death.

What's incredible about The Lego Movie is how even critics like it. I'll be honest, perhaps a quarter of the way through I was asking myself: “What am I actually watching?? This is literally an insane concept! Stupid.” But those thoughts left as quickly as they came... A movie about Lego couldn't be (and shouldn't be) anything other than this!

This film is never on the rails; it is permanently unhinged and borderline surreal. We have wonderful animation techniques (CG stop-motion) that capture the plastic and printed nature of the toy, that looks charming up close and dissolves into absolute chaos when the bricks start flying! It becomes such a joy to watch, despite how airheaded and loopy it is.

You have tonnes of cameos too, Lego have rights to almost everything and here they do not pull their punches. Batman is a main character, Wonder Woman, Superman, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Lincoln, Gandalf, even Shaquille O'Neal, all feature.

That should be your inner child sated, kids will love it. But if I may delve a little further, this movie's theme actually speaks about Lego as a creative medium too! What's more devastating in a child's mind than someone  + gluing Lego pieces together?? That's terrible, and in terms of Lego plight that's as evil as it can be! The film goes further still, but I wouldn't want to tell you everything.

It is utter madness and there's a lot to be said about how it is a nonsense stitched together with a generic prophetic “zero-to-hero” storyline... But really, it says “The Lego Movie” on your ticket, this is what you should expect and, and a little bit more!

Also, the song “Everything is Awesome” is addictive as hell!

Review: RoboCop (2014)

Oh, Hollywood... please stop doing this.

Alex Murphy, police officer of Detroit, is fatally injured in a car bomb explosion and is remade as a cybernetic law enforcement robot. The company who made him, OMNICORP, create military robots to battle in the Middle East, but cannot bring such faceless enforcement into American cities without causing panic. RoboCop is their solution. But Alex's humanity starts to get in the way of their perfect designs...

If you follow Cinema Cocoa you already know how I feel about remakes, but I went to see this one in a hope that the character gets a bit more conviction than in previous installments (the original's sequels, to be exact.) What I get however is still a watered down, play-it-safe and emotionally depleted money spinner.

Let's get technical, shall we? In the original film Alex dies, and is rebuilt as a machine with human reflexes. The corporation who built him, built him to a specific standard, as a product, as an implement to be used for their purposes. But the film's theme is the power of human spirit to break free of corporate shackles; its a testament to human loyalty and inner strength.
In the reboot, Alex doesn't die, but is 99% replaced with robotic parts (I find this a little severe, bordering on laughable, considering he was burned and not shot to ribbons this time...) He is a man in a metal body first, he has all of his humanity. The conflict starts when OMNICORP realises having a human in combat isn't as efficient as a robot, and they slowly modify him with stricter coding. Wouldn't a corporation perhaps appreciate the human element before committing to a multi-million dollar project? This narrative makes OMNICORP not so much evil as just a bit... stupid.

I won't lie, having Alex's family involved here is a good move; the original films needed to play this up and have those emotional bonds, and this film finally does that. But the execution is so drab and dull in terms of characterisation. I didn't feel for any of the characters, not even Murphy himself, even before he becomes RoboCop his personality was wooden. His son doesn't react at all when he sees his dad come home as a towering superhero!

A lot of the film is talking. Dark Knight'ing it up big time. Want to know the pseudo-science behind RoboCop, want to know the business plans and corporate backlash from RoboCop's actions? I hope you do little under-twelve-year-old kiddy, or you're gonna be boooooooooooooored. Seriously studios, you make this a 12A so you can get the family/kiddy cash, then pad your movie with millions of boardroom chat scenes and science jargon? What? Or is this your panicked way of making a longer film without any of Paul Verhoeven's violence, satire or wit?

Oh yeah, there's no satire or wit. I was in a cinema full of mid-twenties to thirties men, I think there were two chuckles throughout the entire film. This isn't just my opinion, the film has nothing of the original's theatricality, brutality or satire. If you aren't twelve, you'll probably get bored fairly quickly.

How about the action? I've not touched on that
A lot of it is decent; the tech involved shows how RoboCop is so effective in combat; we see from his eyes enemies weaknesses etc, which does make it engaging. But unfortunately... for some reason... they made the final gun battle take place in the dark. Oh, great. So lots of strobe lighting and not being able to see what the hell is happening. SMELLS LIKE A 12A ACTION SEQUENCE!
 
Ugh. I had some hope too. Gary Oldman and Michael Keaton are great but even their combined efforts cannot save their monotonous scripts. I don't even mind the redesign of RoboCop or ED-209, the aesthetics are good, the CG isn't bad either, and the family aspect is good. But gah, its such a... such a safe, boring and money-grubbing remake of something that exists already!

You want a final good statement on this film?

It is better than RoboCop 3.

  
  

     

Review: The Heat

The Buddy Cop film gets a re-skin with two unorthodox female leads. It is more of a cartoon than a buddy cop comedy.

FBI agent Ashburn (Sandra Bullock) is an uptight, emotionally closed off woman looking for a promotion. Her opportunity comes from settling another case, a case already taken by an obnoxious, loud mouth local cop who will do anything to get her way.

I'd like to start by saying, I don't think The Heat is my sort of film. I was optimistic having seen parts of it, but I really found a lot of it to grate on me.
This film is more of a cartoon than anything else. Our two officers work with ridiculous impunity, or rather... Melissa McCarthy's Mullins character does. I know it is a comedy but she doesn't obey any laws, ANY laws, and I found it really mean spirited at times.
Particularly against Sandra Bullock's character, who seems to start out as the intelligent shut-in, but constantly gets slammed, insulted, turned down and offended by every other character, especially from Mullins. Mullins herself just spouts slander and curse words, overacting everything and chewing all the scenery.
What gets me most wound up is how hopeless Ashburn becomes. She never gets a time to shine, unlike Mullins who gets away with everything she wants; its like a spoiled child kicking a helpless puppy. There's no resolution either, at least not in a good way. Ashburn has to learn to respect local police officers (the rub of her personal conflict) yet Mullins is a genuinely unpleasant person, and should have someone like Ashburn to teach her restraint, but is instead hero worshiped by the film's narrative!

So the characters are unfortunately lost on me. But in my mind this film is a typical case of role-reversal. They don't overly act like women, at all, they act like men in a buddy cop movie (making the film a dad generic too) Every man in this film is reduced to a pathetic, whimpering idiot (or a clueless jerk) usually to provide Mullins with someone to scream abuse at. Now sure, many male dominated movies have women dumbed down, but usually there's one or two women who are on their level, someone to help, save or give them redemption. Not here. All the men are jerks, evil, idiots or just passives who get pushed aside by McCarthy's unending fury.

So... did I like anything?
The characters and the themes of the film I found awful, misguided and aggressive, but the comedy elements and scenarios included were funny. Early on we see Mullins chasing down a drug peddler, they arrive at a fruit stand and Mullins literally throws a huge watermelon at him, smashing him to the floor. The slapstick comedy here is far superior to the written comedy.

The music is good too.

God, I've fairly panned this film. Women will like this film (though not wanting to be a generalist or a hypocrite in saying so) as it is a cartoonishly over-proportioned fantasy. 
The Heat is a blotched buddy cop movie, at best it is a cartoon without consequences. As a male viewer, I can say I've seen better.