Movie Review - The Babadook: An unsettling chiller with brains and heart

It's almost Halloween, and most people will be looking for a spooky horror to give them thrills and chills; so it's the right time to unleash Australian-made Horror 'The Babadook' at cinemas.  Ostensibly it's the tale of a grieving woman, struggling to cope with her troubled 6 year-old son, who are both terrorised by a supernatural presence.  But this film actually touches on subjects deeper and fears more primal than shadow figures, darkness and things that go bump in the night.

Because of this, if you're after a horror that will make you jump, scream then laugh like you're in a fairground attraction then you will find this slow paced.  This is a film that takes time to draw you in to the lives of Amelia (Essie Davis), who has never fully recovered from the loss of her husband in an horrific accident, and as a result struggles to bond with her son Samuel (Noah Wiseman).  These two central performances are quite fantastic: Davis conveys melancholy, despair, exasperation, and mania so effectively that there are times your heart is breaking for her, only to have her terrify you slightly in another scene.  Henshall gives one of the best performances I've seen from a child actor in any film - his is a genuine one that is believeable and sympathetic, even when the character is most troubling his mother.  Never does the film have him be 'cute' or precocious - as a result his fear and concern when he and his mother are threatened are believable.

"If it's in a word, or in a look, you can‘t get rid of The Babadook..." Children‘s books have never been as scary!

Given the subject matter so far you'd be forgiven for thinking I'm describing your typical depressing drama, but this film establishes such a bleak and unsettling tone even before the supernatural begins to menace Amelia and Samuel.  Almost entirely shot in very muted colours, the fact that many characters are dressed in black (even at a child's party) contribute to a funereal atmosphere.  It also makes their house feel increasingly oppressive and inescapable towards the final act of the film as the titular spook really makes its presence known.

Although many horror directors work to the maxim 'show, don‘t tell', Mister Babadook is mostly kept in shadows and darkness - and works all the better for it.  The film elicits a tremendous sense of fear in quite primal ways, having the monster move in, and seemingly made of, silhouttes and the dark.  Couple this with minimal but suitably creepy sound design, and there are a number of scenes that, if you were ever afraid of the dark corners of your bedroom as a child, should give you chills.  These scenes certainly brought me out in something of a cold sweat!  This is further reinforced through the acting - there are times we only see the characters reacting to the spook, and their horrified, terror-filled expressions completely sell how frightening Mister Babadook is. 

This film makes great use of those childhood fears we've all had - monsters under beds, or in closets, or in the shadows.  What do you mean, some grown ups still do too?

But a surprising amount of the terror in this film comes not just from the supernatural, but from the behaviour of the lead characters.  Initially the film adopts the perspective of Amelia, making the peculiar episodes and monster fixation of her son seem as scary as they are unmanagable.  But this shifts the other way, and we see the way that she is unable to deal with the haunting from Samuel's perspective, and her behaviour becomes a source of terror.

In this respect the supernatural aspects of the film might not, in someways, be satisfying for viewers who want a literal interpretation of the events.  There is a strong subtext about mental health, and for me this only heightened the terror experienced by one of the characters, as well as giving the film a surprisingly heart-wrenching aspect.

A multi-layered script, excellent direction, impressive cinematography and two remarkable performances are the core to this fantastic horror film.  Without relying on gore, cheap shocks or jump scares, this film creates an unsettling and downbeat atmosphere that feeds in to a chilling and frightening final act.  It mixes the supernatural with very real fears that many people experience everyday.  It may well haunt your thoughts for sometime after watching it; it certainly has mine.

Trailer Reaction: Avengers Age of Ultron

Well, hold the front page.  Following a leak (which Marvel Studios amusingly blamed on HYDRA), the Teaser for Avengers: Age of Ultron showed up on-line today.  Now, if I was to write about my actual reaction to this trailer, it would be very difficult to find the words that convey the gibbering, excited noises I was making as I watched this, combined with a kind of drooling.  Instead, this is more of an 'analysis' of what's on display, and why (if justification was ever needed) a lot of people are getting very excited about this film.

Firstly - Ultron is unveiled:

The Avengers need a suitably big threat to make them unite, and a genocidal robot, with an army of drones, should do it.  It had already been confirmed that Tony Stark creates Ultron - supposedly to help the Avengers - but the AI goes all Skynet on them, and decides that the cause of all humanity's problems is, well, humanity.  But I don't think that anyone expected Ultron to be so damned creepy!  He's creepy in his initial form above...

And even in the final shot, where he's fully formed, his lines are delivered with such menace by James Spader it's impossible not to be creeped out!

On top of that, it won't help the Avengers that Ultron is pretty much indestructible (in the comics he's made from every comic/sci-fi writer's favourite fictional metal, Adamantium) - this shot gives a hint of it, but it's not clear whether this is during some attempt to destroy him, or when his final form is being forged.

Secondly - the team will be made to hurt:

Joss Whedon promised he would find ways to hurt the team in this film, and there are shots that indicate they're well on the back-heel - check out the sullen poses in this shot (which appears to be in a Quinjet); Banner looks especially distraught.

There's hints that the team itself will fracture somewhat, as we get a shot of Thor grabbing and lifting Tony Stark by the throat, and also Iron Man taking on Hulk (more of which further on).  But there are suggestions that the Avengers have well and truly met their match - the motionless body below appears to be Thor, and Ultron appears to have found a way to break Cap's apparently unbreakable shield...

There have been all sorts of rumours about what happens to Hulk in this film (I won't comment on them here as I've been trying to avoid them), but this shot depicts an almost tender moment between him and Black Widow.  Is this before or after his fight with Iron Man?

Third - new friends; and foes???

The mid-credits scene from Captain America The Winter Soldier indicates that new characters Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver are the result of HYDRA experimenting on people using captured Alien technology.  This shot indicates that they won't just be working with HYDRA, but also with Ultron...

But at some point they could end up fighting alongside the Avengers - this shot seems to show Quicksilver taking out an Ultron Drone to aid Captain America:

Interestingly, they've chosen a different tack to portraying his powers compared to the approach taken in X-Men: Days of Future Past; this one is slightly more stylised, perhaps, with the flashes of slivery light (can you see what they did there?) that follows him.  This depiction looks like it might be more in keeping with the look of the character from the comics - but some people might not take to this version due to the great job by Evan Peters in the X-Men film (especially my wife, it seems).

But these two aren't the only new characters - Hydra are still around, led by Baron von Strucker (who we saw briefly in The Winter Soldier's mid credit's scene).  Judging by this shot, Hydra are still packing plenty of fire-power to test our heroes...

And finally we get a glimpse of Andy Serkis, who for a change won't be doing mo-cap.  No details of his character - will he be a help to The Avengers, or a hindrance???

Fourth - HULK BUSTER!!!!

This is a HUGELY fan-pleasing element to introduce - in fact it makes me sad that due to the rights issues, we're unlikely to ever see any of Hulk's legendary punch-ups with Wolverine or The Thing.  But we finally get to see Iron Man's 'Hulk Buster' armour, and they have a big scrap in Johannesburg (there were reports earlier this year that they were shooting this scene there).  But why?

Anyway,  Hulk Buster armour - yayyy!!

Hulk vs Iron Man - coooool!

Fifth - Ballet?!?

We can only speculate as to what part this plays in the plot.  IS this how Ultron plans to subdue humanity - by forcing all to take part in classical dance?  Is this a cover for a secret HYDRA plan??  Did Joss Whedon just feel like including some Ballet lessons in the film???

Well, all will be revealed at the end of April for us UK folks (sorry, America)!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go back and watch this trailer again.

And again, and again, and again...

Could Iron Man being in Captain America 3 actually be a BAD thing?

Wow, three posts in a week! Don't know what's got in to me! Anyway,  regular visitors to my blog will be familiar with my fandom of Marvel Studios' output, and how I like to idly speculate and comment on their future slate; well some news emerged this week that I've felt compelled to comment on...

After dropping some not-very-subtle hints that he's been in talks with Marvel Studios about reprising the role of Iron Man beyond his current contract (Avengers 2 & 3), word finally slipped this week that Robert Downey Jr will be in the next Captain America movie.  The title for this hasn't been announced, but recently the directors of this year's Captain America sequel 'The Winter Soldier' stated that fan's minds would be blown when they found out who was going to be in it, and that the title of the sequel would give away what it is about in a big, big way.  Well, since the news about RDJ being in the next Cap movie came out it has also been reported that this movie will cover one of the most dramatic arcs in Marvel Comic's recent history: Civil War.  (For the sake of brevity, you can read the summary of this story at all number of websites like this, this or this.)

Previously, despite many people expressing a desire to see this arc put on film, it seemed unlikely it would happen: after all, Spider-man is pretty central, and Fantastic Four and Wolverine also feature prominently - none of which can be portrayed in a Marvel Studios movie due to their rights being with Sony and Fox respectively.  Add to that, the Civil War arc is a pretty dark one, and ultimately has a depressing conclusion - the assassination of Captain America.  Whilst that element is one I don't think Marvel Studios should shy away from portraying in some way at some point in one of their films, I personally have felt that they'd have been better choosing elements of this story and working them in to one or more of their movies.  But if reports are to be believed, Captain America 3 will be strongly based on this story.  And I must admit, I'm worried.

I'm not worried about the handling of this particular story arc - Marvel's handling of their own characters and stories has been successful so far, and given the quality of their last five films (okay, maybe not so much the recent Thor, but that did have strong points!) I think we can trust that they will handle it in a way that is as effective, satisfying and entertaining as these films.  No, what has got me worried is that it has been reported that Robert Downey Jr has negotiated himself a far bigger role in the next Captain America movie than was originally planned.

'But Robert Downey Jr is GREAT as Tony Stark/Iron Man!' I hear you cry - yes, you're right.  You can argue that without his performance in the first Iron Man film, Marvel Studios would not have gone on to have the success they have since enjoyed.  The charisma he brought to the role was part of what made the first Iron Man such fun, and he is without doubt an immense box-office draw in the role. It is impossible to to imagine anyone else playing him, and if he will continue in the role beyond the next two Avengers films he's contracted for (Age of Ultron and the next sequel), that in itself is a good thing. 

If rumours that RDJ argued his way to a bigger role in Cap 3, what does this mean for Cap's story and character arc?

However, if the reports of 'fraught negotiations' are true, then I believe there are some implications for how Marvel Studios have been doing things. Bear in mind, this is the studio that, whilst giving their directors and stars a certain amount of creative freedom, still has a very set plan for their films. Look at what happened with Ant-man and the departure of Edgar Wright; he apparently wanted to do a standalone film, but Marvel Studios (I think it can be argued rightly) wanted a film that was part of their universe - so Wright parted, despite spending almost 8 years on and off working on it. This demonstrates how focussed Marvel Studios are on their plan for their characters and their films.

But despite this, RDJ can apparently argue his way to a bigger role in a film that isn't even his own. Again, I'm not going to debate storylines or characterisation - as I've said, going on their track record, I trust them to pull that off.  My concern is that Marvel can apparently be swayed to alter their plans at the demands of one actor. Especially when the film in question is ostensibly a Captain America sequel; if more room is being made to accommodate RDJ as Stark, how will this leave room for the plot and character threads that 'Winter Soldier' introduced like the redemption of Bucky, or Cap's friendship with Falcon? I am concerned that this could be the first time Marvel Studios have made a compromise that effects the portrayal and development of one (or more) of their characters - one of the strengths that has put them ahead of some other movie studio's comic adaptations.

Despite the potential problems, this story could be the Superhero clash people remember in 2016, instead of that other one...

Also, this may set a precedent where other compromises start to be made on other films, further eroding the character and story focus and thus the high standards that have so far been a mark of their films.  If these reports are true, and RDJ's contract negotiations do indicate the start of worrying compromises, then there's no small irony that there's a parallel with the arc apparently being put on film:

In the comic, it is the hubris and stubbornness of Tony Stark that ends many superhero alliances with cataclysmic results for the Marvel universe; whilst the actor that portrays him could potentially undermine the Marvel movies with his own hubris and stubbornness, perhaps leading to their decline.

I sincerely hope that this doesn't turn out to be the case and it must be said, a lot of this is based upon rumour and speculation at the moment. When Marvel Studios finally officially announce the title of Captain America 3 things may be clearer. But hopefully they'll still continue to do right by their characters, AND maintain the high standards of their films. 

Movie Review - '71: Taut, gripping and brutal thriller shows British cinema can rival Hollywood

The opening scene of '71 features recruit Gary Hook (Jack O'Connell) in a Boxing Ring, trading blows with a fellow recruit, while their Drill Sergeant shouts at theme to "Take it, and give it back."  If this order was an indication of how Hook responds to the ordeal he endures over the course of the film, this would be a typical action movie - almost 'Die Hard' in Northern Ireland, during 'The Troubles'.  One where Hook would be a 'hero' who gets bloody and beaten, but fights his way out through 'bad guys' to safety; but '71 is in fact a tense, gripping, and brutal thriller.  It is one that, despite the politically charged setting, offers no easy explanations or picks sides.

We follow Hook through a brief montage of training, then see his Platoon ordered to Northern Ireland to assist "the deteriorating security situation there".  Before offering his younger brother (who still lives in an orphanage) reassurances that he will be alright, he and his squad mates are shipped over to Northern Ireland.  When they are called out to support local Police in a search for arms in a Catholic area of the city, the similarly-green commanding officer turns down full riot gear, stating that they don't want to give the local people "the wrong message" - they're there to protect them.  This, it goes without saying, is a mistake, and as the Soldiers are transported through a maze of terraced streets, roads blocked by burnt-out double decker buses, the atmosphere grows increasingly ominous.  When the search turns in to a riot, Hook is separated from the rest of his Platoon who have made a hasty withdrawal from the situation, and he is pursued by IRA gunmen through the disorientating warren of streets, uncertain who is friend or foe.

Private Hook (O'Connell) is a young soldier, thrown in to a conflict situation he doesn't understand, not knowing who or why he's in conflict with...

This film expertly creates a spiralling feeling of dread, before hammering at full pelt in to this tense and frightening chase sequence.  From this moment it is brutal and uncompromising in its depiction of what must have been an undescribably awful time for the people of Belfast - beatings, shootings, and a bombing are among the harrowing scenes; and in between we learn of the fears of the ordinary people of the city who - regardless of their Religious heritage - are in constant fear of being targeted by para-militaries, police, or British Army.  Again, this film doesn't sermonize on the rights or wrongs of anyone involved in the conflict - but it must be said that no one-side comes away from this film looking good in anyway, whether they be Republican, Unionist, or British.

O'Connell is an actor who has gained a lot of praise this year for his performance in 'Starred Up', and in the few scenes early in the film before he and his Platoon get to Belfast he impresses with the understated way he makes Hook a relatable young man.  He certainly has leading man looks and a certain charisma, but it must be said that once the film moves to Belfast and things go bad for Hook there isn't time to admire the acting - other than follow his way through the city as breathlessly and nervously as he does, pursued and fearful.  This film does juggle a number of characters and plot strands - you have British Intelligence headed by Captain Browning (Sean Harris, surely one of the most under-rated character actors in Britain at the moment); an IRA which is beginning to splinter and threaten to fight amidst themselves, represented by David Wilmott's Boyle and Killian Scott's younger, more militant Quinn; and a Protestant lad who wants to carry on the fight just because his dad was killed by the IRA (Corey McKinley).  The film might have become unfocussed once these various players are brought in, but it just about manages to keep Hook's perilous and fraught attempts to get back to his barracks central.  Partly because, just like Hook, you're not sure who he can trust, and are aware that a potential killer could lurk - literally - around the corner.

This film is unflinching in its portrayal of the grim and sometimes brutal nature of the conflict in Northern Ireland...

This film might be too bleak and brutal for some people, and some may find the ending not quite satisfying: there is no resolution to many of the films plot strands, but any film depicting this messy conflict that tried to make one would feel false and disrespectful.  Instead this is a film which, I think, urges us to consider soldiers from Britain and other countries that are (whilst still only just young men or women) dropped in to war zones elsewhere in the world, without understanding the full nature of or reasons behind it - or even who is their ally or their enemy.  This film certainly invites comparisons with conflicts where our soldiers have been deployed in the last 40 years.

Though this film does not shy away from depicting the bleak and brutal nature of the messiest conflict of recent British history, it is one of the most gripping and effective thrillers to come out of this country in some time.  It is haunting in a lot of ways, not least because it doesn't settle for an easy explanations.  It also shows that Britain can make tense and compelling thrillers that are on par with the best Hollywood can offer, on a fraction of the budget.  It's the sort of film that makes you hope that the director Yann Demange and its stars can go on to bigger things in the future.

Movie Review - Ninja Turtles: T-erribly M-ishandled N-ew-franchise T-ribulations...

"It's froth," declares Camera Man Vern (Will Arnett) to determined-to-be-a-proper-news-reporter April O'Neil (Megan Fox - yes, just allow yourself to dwell upon the irony of that casting for a brief moment), handing her a cup of coffee, trying to console her that her attempts to report the mystery of a new vigilante have failed and she's covering aerobics instead.  "People like froth", he continues.  If you wanted to find one statement that sums up the attitude of the makers of this film to this new take on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, then that seems apt.  For this film barely makes a shrug in its attempt to establish a new take on the character's background story, and probably just as little effort to tell a compelling story that isn't predictable, given little-to-no foundation by a poor script.  It's just a superficial action-blockbuster that doesn't attempt to make the most of the source material's potential.

On the one hand you could argue that Ninja Turtles is a franchise that doesn't really need to be approached with any sort of seriousness - it was, after all, created 30 years ago as something of a joke, a parody of tropes in Marvel comics of the time (Ninjas, Mutants, parallel dimensions, and super-power creating, chemical related accidents).  However, this idea moved form a cult comic to being embraced by not one but three generations of kids.  I was there when they first broke in the UK, circa late '80's/1990, and like many kids I was swept along, clamouring after that action figures and video games.  And now, thanks to a contemporary CGI cartoon by Nickleodeon, my 7 year old son is a fan.  Despite the silliness of the concept it is easy to see why this team of anthromorphic-amphibians keep getting rediscovered by successive generations - they are a set of strong, identifiable and relatable characters, underpinned by a family dynamic that people can identify with.  Add in memorable villains like Shredder and the Krang, and you've got the basis of a great franchise.

You can add your own jokes about which is the more realistic looking creation to this picture, they're too obvious for me...

But the makers of this film don't seem to realise the potential they have at their hands - perhaps unsurprisingly, seeing as this film comes from the production company of Michael Bay, who has similarly wasted the potential of the Transformers epic back-story again, and again, and again.  Here they've put a new spin on it, which puts April O'Neil surprisingly close to their origin; although the makers of this new take are within their rights to put their own spin on the Turtle's origins, it is a pretty ham-fisted attempt.  Everything is spelt out completely un-profound ways ('they like pizza because they were fed pizza before they were mutants!!1!'), to the extent that it makes you think 'really??'

The film's plot has the same problem; not only is it entirely predictable, but it still attempts to spell everything out, just in case.  The set up sees New York threatened by a criminal organisation called 'The Foot Clan'.  Apparently the Police are powerless to do anything about them (really?), so when the company of Eric Sachs (William Fichtner) steps up to help, you don't have to be a genius to see where THAT is going.  This is coupled with a script that, again, spells things out to the point of becoming mind-numbing ("here is what I am going to do; this is what will happen when I do that thing I am about to do.  I am now doing that thing, so that other thing will happen because of it."  That's not an exact lift from the script, but I'm sure you get the idea).  However you'd be forgiven for thinking that the presence of Arnett and Fichtner would at least give some scenes a lift, but sadly their characters are so one note that even they can't lift the proceedings, despite their efforts.  And as for Megan Fox, well unfortunately this film isn't going to do a lot to convince cynics she's little more than a pretty face when it comes to acting...

Like the Turtles, villain Shredder has had his design 'upgraded', but perhaps unnecessarily so...

But, having said that, no one is going to go see this film for those actors (well, hardly anyone, though they do have their fans!); it's the Turtles themselves that are the main draw.  On the one hand, possibly the film's only saving grace is that the characterisation that makes the Turtles what they are is, for the most part, present.  The broad personalities that define each one are carried over from their previous incarnations, and it is from their brotherly dynamics that most of the (admittedly few) genuine laughs are drawn.  However, despite impressive CGI work the sees them seamlessly integrated with real actors, I personally found the new designs (with nostrils!) to be fairly distracting (each time I see the scene, included in the trailer, where Mikey 'unmasks' himself to April, my mind just cries out 'Shrek!!!').  Having said that, you can't fault the execution of the CGI in a couple of action scenes, especially the martial arts based ones.  I saw the film in 3D, and actually found that a hindrance, as it made some of the faster-paced action scenes a bit of an indistinct blur.  IMAX might be better, but if you find yourself having to take the kids to see it this half-term, 2D would be my recommendation.

Ultimately this new Turtles movie was going to have an up-hill struggle to prove itself, coming alongside a brilliant TV show which I'd argue is the best take on the characters so far (I watch it with my son, and we both enjoy it!) - there are great laughs, genuine surprises and some surprisingly emotionally affecting story points in almost each episode.  These are the things that are by and large absent from this new movie.  Given thatthe film has been a success at the Box Office elsewhere around the world, a sequel is guaranteed; hopefully they'll build on the foundation of the Turtle's and their personalities and family dynamics - and put considerably more effort in to the script and plot...

'SHREK??!?!?'

The Most Relentlessly Awesome Films Ever: Ghostbusters

I had hoped to write another of these articles back in August, but unfortunately I was just too busy; but this series is BACK - and the choice is a timely one given a) it certainly fits the time of year with Halloween impending; b) the sad passing of one of the lead actors earlier this year; c) it's getting a well deserved re-release to mark its 30th anniversary in the UK this month; and d) the recent announcements about a reboot/sequel.  All I'll say on that regard is that Paul Feig has a lot to live up to with his film...

THE MOST RELENTLESSLY AWESOME FILMS EVER - PART SIX:

GHOSTBUSTERS (1984)

I don't think my childhood interest in ghosts and the paranormal started with 'Ghostbusters', but it certainly helped fuel it.  Prior to the release of this film, the only other movie that had influenced my career aspirations was when I saw 'Star Wars' at the age of 5, and decided I wanted to become an X-Wing Pilot(!); well, after seeing Ghostbusters I wanted to be a scientist - a 'parapsychologist', at that.  This continued for years afterwards, helped no doubt by cartoon shows and a sequel - but for a while I wanted to set up 'traps' around our house and see if it was haunted.  So straight away I have to acknowledge that this is a film that had a significant impact on my childhood.

It wasn't until I was in my 20's that I truly appreciated what a sophisticated film Ghostbusters truly is.  Well, if you'll excuse the fact that my realisation stems from a joke referencing male bodily fluids!  But it truly demonstrates what a tremendous piece of work this film is, that it could beguile kids with its world building, characters and special effects, and be appreciated by adults for knowing humour and at least one truly iconic comedic acting performance.

"...like the floor of a Taxi cab..."  Eeewwwwww!!!

My deeper appreciation at the many levels upon which Ghostbusters works actually followed a viewing of 'Taxi Driver' when I was 21; there's a scene where Robert DeNiro's iconic anti-hero Travis Bickle describes cleaning his taxi after a night shift in detail that, well, doesn't leave much to the imagination.  A few years later I got hold of a copy of Ghostbusters on DVD, and I can remember watching the scene where, having defeated the attempts of Gozer the Gozerian to open the gates to Her alternate dimension, the Ghostbusters are covered in the residue of the exploded Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.  Egon's comment that he "feels like the floor of a taxi cab" immediately brought to mind the aforementioned scene from Taxi Driver, and suddenly I had a whole new understanding of that joke..!

It might seem like a crude place from which to base a new-found appreciation of a film, but I'd been a fan of it since I was 7, and my love for Ghostbusters had not diminished since then.  It was one of those films that is the archetypal '80's event movie - a blockbuster smash that was accompanied by a hit record, and made an indelible impact upon popular culture (c.f. Back to the Future, Top Gun, etc etc etc).  If you were a child during that period you were no doubt exposed to the combined marketing that went along with these films, like books, t-shirts, collectibles given away free in breakfast cereals - at that age, thanks to these, before I'd even seen the film I was sold on the concept of Ghostbusters.

But merchandising does not a classic film make - the elements need to be up on the screen, and Ghostbusters still stands out in this remark because of three things I mentioned above.  Firstly, it establishes a setting which is at once simple, yet with enough depth to ensure that it really draws the viewer in.  Co-screenwriter Dan Ackroyd is well known for his fascination with the supernatural, and this shines through in all sorts of ways.  There's the way the team investigate the paranormal, all the various unexplainable 'events' the characters refer to (some, admittedly, are there for comedic effect more than anything - 'mass sponge vibration', anyone?), references to 'Tobin's Spirit Guide', and the idea that the occult and paranormal are even in the history, design and architecture of the city.  Then, there's the science and tech behind the ghost-busting itself - it's handled in such a way that makes it simple enough to grasp, plausible enough to believe in, but - most importantly - it works in a way that is really, really cool.  Proton Packs, Ghost Traps, the Containment Chamber make complete sense in the world the film establishes, but are also iconic designs that capture the imagination - as a child I was probably one of many who yearned for a set of overalls and a toy Proton Pack to emulate my Ghostbuster heroes!

I mean seriously, how cool are the Proton Packs?

And that's a paradox of this film, because as you get older you realise that, really, the Ghostbusters aren't your archetypal heroes - in fact, in a lot of ways, they're the opposite.  You have Ackroyd's Ray Stantz, an enthusiastic man-child; the late, great Harold Ramis as Egon Spengler, a man so entrenched in science he's out of his depth with normal interactions with other human beings; Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, whose wise-cracking is a cover for the fact he has no interest in science or proper scientific ethics whatsoever, and has pretty much based his career on coasting on the work and achievements of Stantz & Spengler.  Finally, you have Ernie Hudson as Winston Zeddemore - whilst the 'token black dude', he's also a grounded, blue-collar voice for the film, motivated not by a desire to protect people from ghosts, but simply for 'a steady pay-check'.

But this brings me to what I think is the second reason this film remains a classic - it is in this characterisation that the depth of Ghostbusters becomes apparent.  It is the fact that each one of them goes against the standard 'heroic' norms that makes them such a unique and memorable team; they fit together almost like parts of a body - Ray is the team's heart, Egon it's head, Zeddemore the common sense, whilst Venkman is undoubtedly the mouth.  And although this makes the film something of an ensemble piece, each character is given some great lines and moments, making them unforgettable.  That even goes to supporting characters such as Annie Potts as Janine Melnitz, Rick Moranis' scene-stealing Louis Tully, and William Atherton's sneering Walter Peck - each make their mark on this film in often funny but indelible ways.  And not forgetting Dana Barrett, played by the legend that is Sigourney Weaver; what could have been a rote 'damsel in distress' role avoids this pitfall by making her intelligent, strong, and independent.  It is a mark of how great the film's script and direction are that, despite how high the gag-rate is, and how quickly the film establishes its world and progresses the plot, it never loses any of the performances or characterisation in the midst of these; the audience is always invested because of the characters and the performances.

"...it sounds like you have two people in there already..."

Which brings me to the third reason I think this film is considered such a classic - while each character gets at least one classic, quotable line or great moment, there is no doubt that one performance stands out above all the other.  Bill Murray's name isn't the top one above the poster, but this film is so closely associated with him because of what an iconic character he makes out of Peter Venkman.  He gets the film's best lines, delivered in that low-key, almost dead pan, slightly sarcastic way that is his trademark. Despite his flaws - we're first introduced to him rigging a test so he can ask an attractive student on a date - his sardonic humour is irresistible; even Dana Barrett eventually falls for his charms (in a fashion).  I think that, as iconic as Bill Murray is in this film, you have to acknowledge Ackroyd for not only writing  another actor's part as the movies' effective lead, but also giving to him the films best lines.  And let's face it, if you're going to quote Ghostbusters, you're going to be quoting a Venkman line:

"Okay, so?  She's a dog."
"It's true, your honour; this man has no dick."
"...aaaaand... the flowers are still standing!"

"No one steps on the church in my town!"

"...dogs and cats living together, pandemonium!"
"Back off, man.  I'm a scientist."
"We came, we saw, we kicked it's ASS!"

"...it slimed me..!"

Although Ghostbusters is a film of its era, its status as a timeless classic is assured because everyone involved brought their A game to it - the script, the direction, each actor, the special effects, the score; if you want to show someone what an entertaining and funny blockbuster movie looks like, then there are few movies that can rival Ghostbusters as a near-perfect example of this.  It retains a special place in the hearts of the 1980's generation that grew up with it, but it is widely esteemed by all because of its humour, characterisation, and a career-defining performance.  I'm looking forward to revisiting it on the big screen later this month - and not least of all because I'm taking my son to see it for the first time.  He's the age I was when I first saw it, so I'm looking forward to seeing what he makes of it...

I might just have to warn my son about this particular scene though, seeing as it did scar my own childhood just a little when I was his age..!

Movie Review - Gone Girl: a (mostly) unhappy union of satire and thriller...

We're all in an unequal, one-sided and unhappy marriage - trapped and unable to escape, or at least 'Gone Girl' would have you believe.  Because although ostensibly a mystery thriller about the disappearance of one man's wife, and how this  exposes the cracks in their relationship, everything unfolds through the filter of media exposure, and under the monolithic gaze of corporate advertising.  Well, at least in America - though it's probably not so far from the truth in any western country dominated by consumerist society.  This is probably the most interesting idea that runs slyly though the film, like a hairline fracture creeping along a pane of glass; because as a mystery thriller, the twists seem almost as predictable as they lack impact, and as a drama about the decline of a marriage, it's heavy-handed and probably been more effectively portrayed in many low-key movies before it.

David Fincher follows his workman-like but mis-handled 'Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' adaptation with this, another adaptation of a very popular book from 2012 by Gillian Flynn (who also adapts her own work for this screenplay).  I've not read the book, but it apparently has a tremendous fan base - I can't say whether or not they'll approve or be riled by this film version.  For a director renowned for his technical and visual flair, Fincher keeps things low key, focusing us squarely upon the lead performances of Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike as Nick and Amy Dunne - and fair enough, as it is their couple around which the film is focused, and their performances hit the mark precisely.  Some of Fincher's trademarks are present (he's the only director who can make a scene outside in daylight and sunshine feel cold and dark) including an opening that flashes (almost disorientatingly fast) through various shots of the setting, contrasting images of affluence, poverty, Americana, and a kind of gentle suburban slumber.  Fincher seems to be presenting this montage as his portrayal of contemporary America, which underpins that this film is trying to say something to the country as a whole, not just one couple's marriage.

The first act is probably the film's most effective - using flashbacks, through Amy's  diary, the couple's relationship is revealed: from courtship, through proposals, early marriage, then the beginning of its decline (against the backdrop of recession).  It is during these scenes that Pike's performance comes to the fore, giving Amy a voice that will resonate with many women - or most couples, to be fair.  This is intertwined with Nick's discovery, on the morning of their Fifth Wedding Anniversary, that Amy is missing, and there are signs of foul play.  Secrets are revealed, and Nick comes under increasing scrutiny from the media, and eventually the finger of blame begins to point at him.  During this part of the film Affleck makes for a believable and relatable - if not always likeable - Nick, just a typical guy who has found his life, career and marriage have ended up in a certain place, not always helped by choices he has made.  The mystery element of the story works best here, as we're never sure whether to trust Nick or believe the accusations being levelled at him.

Affleck as Nick Dunne tries to take the media finger of guilt away from him and refocus on to the search for his wife.  It doesn't really work...

But during the second act there's a twist in the plot, which I won't divulge (but if you've read the book you'll know what I mean), and the focus of the film changes again - the thriller element is still intact, but it takes on more of a darkly comic aspect.  This part of the story still works quite effectively, helped in no small part by the central performances, and especially Carrie Coon as Nick's sister Margo.  However as the film draws to its final act it takes some even darker turns, and ends in a place that - whilst in fitting with the themes of the story and how it depicts marriage - may leave some people feeling unsatisfied.  As the film draws to a close the satire of marriage as kind of prison, almost as an existential hell, is very much fulfilled - but as I said earlier, it's something that has been portrayed before in other films, and most likely more effectively: the thriller part of this story arguably robs this satire with some of its power.  At least, it did for my wife and I, who have been married 6 years now, and are still happy (take that Nick & Amy!) - we joked about the film for a few days after watching it.

Pike's performance as Amy is one that you'll talk about long after seeing the film - I won't say any more though, because spoilers!

If this part of the film doesn't hit the mark as emphatically as it could, then as a media satire it is more effective - as Nick's life is scrutinised by the media we're under no illusion of how pervasive and intrusive television and news can be.  The film might have gone more in to the part the internet plays in this, through social media, but maybe Fincher felt he'd explored that part of life enough with 'The Social Network'?  It's not just Nick Dunne, trying to protest his innocence, that is subject to this pressure, it is all of us: whether we are having our opinion manipulated, or by having these opinions filtered through the demands of corporate interests (one montage depicts appeals for the search for Amy on billboards under signs for MacDonald's and other corporate marketing logos).  If the Dunnes are portrayed as trapped in their marriage, then this film depicts America as a whole as being trapped in its relationship with the media - which, in serving corporate and political interests, can turn the tide of public opinion against those whom the media decides have stepped out of their decreed 'societal norm'.

'Gone Girl' is an effective thriller which will create plenty of conversation, even if you may find yourself disagreeing with, or at the very least having a chuckle about, its dark portrayal of marriage.  It contains at least two performances that will change the perception of certain actors in a largely positive way (without going in to spoilers), though fans of Fincher's work will feel he's still not made a truly great film since 'The Social Network'.  He has stated that he hopes the film ends thousands of marriages - I don't know if it will have quite that impact.  In fact, there are probably films that would make for worse date movies than this one.  Having said that, my wife and I probably aren't the best measure for this - our first date was the first 'Saw' movie..!