Movie Review - Pride: the feel-good movie you won't realise you've been waiting for!

I saw Pride the day after it was announced that the people of Scotland narrowly voted in favour of remaining part of the United Kingdom, and it immediately felt to me that this is a film that has arrived at the right moment.  It tells the true story of how, during 1984's bitter Miner's Strike, members of London's Lesbian and Gay community raised money to support the communities of the striking miners.  After a number of knock backs (essentially, Miner's groups and community groups hanging up the phone when they mention they're calling from 'Lesbians & Gays Support Miners'), they eventually find a mining town in Wales willing to accept the money they have raised.  This film charts the cultural and lifestyle gap that the two groups close as they form a bond from the support of 'LGSM', obviously encountering but overcoming prejudice as they do so; it finds a great amount of humour along the way, and manages to tell this story in a rousing and uplifting way.

On the one hand, this film is filled with exactly the sort of story tropes you'd expect to find in any that touches on these subjects, especially the elements focused on the gay community.  You've got the tale of a young man who daren't come out to his family, the spectre of AIDS/HIV, 'queer-bashing', tearful reunions with estranged families, the one family in the community that won't put prejudice aside, and the odd bout of disco dancing.  When the story treads in to these areas beyond the central narrative, you can see exactly where each is going.  But whilst this might have been the film's downfall, the great cast, each bringing warmth and humanity to their (not always deeply scripted) roles, prevents the clichés from overwhelming the heart of it.  And this film does have a tremendous cast, ranging from national treasures like Bill Nighy and Imelda Staunton; the cream of the current generation like Paddy Considine and Dominic West; and rising talent such as Andrew Scott, George MacKay, and Faye Marsay.

This film will probably make you want to cheer, too..!

The script is effective at firstly making the most of the humour in situations it arises from (one scene in particular is possibly the funniest I've seen this year); but also in making sure that each rousing, emotional moment truly hits its mark.  Who cares if it's daft that a rallying speech at the Mining Union's club bar provokes an impromptu bit of communal singing?  Chances are you'll be covered in goosebumps, or wiping away a speck of sentiment from the corner of your eye, so you'll completely excuse it.  This film is so uplifting and rousing audiences have been giving it standing ovations, and there are plans to turn it in to a musical.

It is because this film hits these marks so well - the moments of joy and humour - and that the cast is uniformly brilliant (as well as, naturally, the attention to period detail - if you're a fan of 1980's music you'll really enjoy this film), that despite its adherence to well established formulas, it is still a resounding success.  Every so often a British film comes along that the film goes of the UK can really get behind and cheer on to success - this then is THE essential British film of 2014.  Funny, joyful and rousing, it is a great crowd pleaser.

You'll probably find yourself laughing as much as these ladies...

And going back to what I was saying at the beginning, I personally feel that this is a film we need for our country at this time.  I couldn't help but draw parallels with nowadays: the Lesbian and Gay community are inspired to help the miners after seeing them vilified by the national media, and bullied by the police and authorities, in the same way they had been for decades.  Today, rather than tackling problems head on, it is easier for the tabloid press to whip up fear and hatred of people on benefits or immigrants - much the way they did with the gay community and miners in the 1980's.  But this film shows that it is possible for two very different groups to overcome potential divisions and not only support, but also befriend each other.  Things can be better when people work together - and I think that if people would stop listening to fear-mongering media and press that seeks to divide us and stop us seeing bigger problems, then maybe we can make our country a better place.

Emotive rhetoric for sure, but if you don't come out of watching 'Pride' in some way inspired or optimistic, then I wonder if you've really been watching the film at all..!

Movie Review - The Boxtrolls: not just cute for the kids, but smart enough for grown ups, too..!

It might be that recently the news has been dominated by the Scottish Independence Referendum (at least, it has here in the UK), but when I went to see two films at the cinema this weekend I couldn't help but look at them in terms of political messages.  With one of these films it wasn't a great surprise, as it is set during a specific moment of not-too-distant British history.  But the other is something of a surprise seeing as it's a children's (well, let's call it a family) film.  I'll start by reviewing this one first - but if, after the 'Indy Ref', you've had enough of politics for a while, you might want to approach this review with caution...

 

On the surface, you might look at The BoxTrolls and almost think for a moment that Laika - genius stop-motion artists behind the dark fairytale 'Coraline', and fun '80's inspired Kids & Zombies flick 'ParaNorman' - are losing a bit of their, well, darkness and edginess.  This film has been marketed upon the titular little monsters - so called because they 'wear' boxes, and each are named after the object pictured on them; they're actually quite cute, growling, gurgling and babbling in their own, infant-like language.  Given the success of a certain other animated franchise featuring an extremely popular bunch of similar sounding characters, on one level it makes sense that these are being marketed as the main attraction to this film.  Indeed, children will possibly be charmed by them as much as they have been by those other, highly marketable creations.

However, there's much more going on in this film than your standard, kiddie friendly babbling, raspberry blowing, and prat-falling.  Parents of younger children especially should be aware, because despite the first impressions, that Laika edginess is still present: there are grotesque villains, some infernal looking contraptions, and in a couple of scenes, some unpleasant looking, allergy based disfigurements; these might be a bit too much for toddlers, though my 7 year-old son didn't seem bothered.

The BoxTrolls themselves actually turn out to be quite cute and charming...

But that's part of what makes Laika great at what they do - they don't shy away from those moments of darkness or grotesqueness that, when you come down to it, have been present in Children's stories since even before Fairy Tales even existed.  They know that there is at once a squeamish glee in details such as eating a plateful of bugs (the BoxTrolls' staple diet), or in seeing a really dastardly villain come to a suitably sticky, or even gooey, end..!

'The BoxTrolls' tells the story of Eggs, apparently 'taken' by the eponymous monsters as a baby, raised by them a one of their own; by day they live in their home under the city, but by night they come above ground to look for interesting things they can take to repair or mend.  They're certainly not doing any harm to anyone, but the people of the city live in fear of them, believing them to be child-snatching, flesh eating monsters.  So the City Council have allowed the vicious Snatcher and his henchmen to round up and destroy all the BoxTrolls.  Even though the people have rarely seen or encountered the BoxTrolls, Snatcher has convinced them that they are a danger to them, but when Eggs accidentally meets Winnie, the Daughter of the ruling Lord of the City, together they stumble across Snatcher’s real plan for the BoxTrolls, and realise who is the real threat to the city.

Winnie, Eggs, and the BoxTrolls uncover a nefarious and villainous plot...

Laika's artistry - the designs of the characters and backgrounds, the animation, and the steam-punk(ish) setting - is as flawless as their previous films.  They've assembled an excellent voice cast for this, too: Sir Ben Kingsley, Jared Harris, Elle Fanning and new-comer Isaac Hempstead Wright lead with more than able support from the likes of Nick Frost, Richard Ayoade (seriously, why has no one ever thought to put his voice to an animated character before?  It’s absolutely perfect for the medium!) and Tracy Morgan - as well as an enjoyable and non-distracting cameo from Simon Pegg.  The script raises itself above the usual kid's animated fare, thanks to some interesting characterization - especially Snatcher's henchmen, whose debating over whether they're the good guys or in fact the villain made for several amusing moments.

In fact, I believe parents taking their kids to see this film will be surprised that there is a level to this film that will speak to them, as well as the children.  For me, this film had a subtext which I believe is hugely relevant - especially in Britain.  You have a ruling class who are too wrapped up in their wealth and status, and enjoying the trappings thereof (in this case it's copious amounts of cheese), to effectively carry out their responsibilities to the people they're governing.  One scene sees them choose to put money in to a giant cheese round, instead of a much needed public hospital!  Then you have a villain whose agenda is to become part of the ruling class, and to do this has created a culture of fear amongst the ordinary people, singling out and turning them against an 'underclass' (in this case, literally, because they live underground) - even though the BoxTrolls, with their recycling activities, are actually a potential benefit to society.  I couldn't help but think of how tabloid newspapers, owned by billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch, are quick to promote fear and hatred of the poor (people on benefits) and outsiders (immigrants) - whilst promoting policies that protect their wealth but hurt the prospects of the people who buy their papers; or, no less insidious, are hiding their own hypocrisy (such as having billions in potentially taxable wealth hidden away in overseas accounts.  It has been pointed out that undeclared/un-paid tax far eclipses the amount that goes paid in benefits - just bear that in mind the next time you see a Daily Mail headline decrying people on benefits).

I'm not sure how well that translates outside of the UK at the moment, but ultimately there are truths in the way the cities rulers and the villains' intentions are portrayed in this film.  Having seen the trailers, which really played up mayhem and mischief around the BoxTrolls, I expected something that really skewed towards younger children.  While your kids will enjoy this (so long as they’re not too young or easily frightened), like me you may find this film as thought provoking as it is amusing.  So this is quite a different film to their previous offerings, but it’s pleasing to see that Laika's quality is as high here as it has been in their other films; and again, they've provided a film that has something for all ages.

Movie Review - The Guest: something wicked (and quite fun) this way comes...

 

It's hard to believe that the 1980's could be considered a 'golden age' of movie making, but perhaps due to the people who grew up or came of age during that decade, there is no small amount of nostalgia for the era of the video nasty, Spielberg-Amblin Blockbuster, and the synth-driven soundtrack.  This is at its most evident in 'The Guest', from up-and-coming cult genre director Adam Wingard (director of fun slasher-horror satire 'You're Next'); it has the synth-driven score, some lo-fi and neon lit scenes, and - on occasion - the same wryly gleeful approach to sex, violence and blood that most straight to video b-movies from that era did.  I'm going to be straight to the point here - how taken you are with this movie will, for a large part, be down to how much you subscribe to this overt '80's vibe.  If you appreciate the style the director is deliberately evoking here, then there's very good chance you will have a lot of fun with this film.

'The Guest' of the title is David (played by Dan Stevens, who Downton Abbey fans will recognise straight away), who visits the home of a family who have lost their eldest son in the war.  Telling them he was a close friend of their loved-one, he is welcomed in, and very quickly gains the trust of each family member in turn.  But not long after we first meet him a single shot of David sat on his own, silent, a menacing look on his face, tells us that this man is not quite what he appears.  To say more would give too much away, but if you're clued up on '80's genre films - the director admitted the inspiration for this came after viewing Friday the 13th and The Terminator back-to-back - and those films especially - you might be able to guess where the story is heading.

Stevens said he wanted to move away from the 'nice-guy' image of his Downton role; he does this in menacing, anti-heroic style in 'The Guest'

But before the plot takes these twists, the opening act presents a marvellous turn from Stevens as David - he is charming, and when it comes to dealing with anyone threatening to cause trouble for his dead comrade's families (such as the bullies targeting his kid brother at high school), he is quite the bad-ass.  Often in the same scene he can suddenly become menacing and threatening - even only for an instance.  Stevens' portrayal of David makes for a memorable anti-hero, to the extent that big things have been predicted for this actor in future.  It's just as well his performance is so good, as the film is anchored upon it; without such a memorable turn, this film would be far less effective.

The supporting cast are by no means poor in contrast - indeed, their turns are spot on: Sheila Kelley as grieving mother Laura, Leland 'that guy from that thing!' Orser as border-line alcoholic father spencer, Brendan Meyer as the bright but bullied teenage son Luke, and Maika Monroe as resourceful older sister Anna.  I liked that this film doesn't dwell upon the effect that the loss of their son and brother has had, but economically - through the script and performances - there are suggestions of how the family is fraying, and each member has dealt with their grief in their own way in almost isolation from each other.  This also feeds in to the set up - this makes it easier for David to get alongside each member of the family in turn, gaining their trust and opening up to him.

Siblings Luke (Brendan Meyer) and Anna (Maika Monroe) are won over by David, but suspicions soon arise, and Anna proves resourceful...

But once the plot begins to expand, and we learn the truth about David, the film very much steps up to the '80's genre mark.  Whilst there is fun to be had with this, the cinematography - which never really captures the grit and grime of those low budget straight-to-video B-movies from the era this film is trying to evoke - seems too polished in places.  Ironically, despite that the final act tips a respectful wink to '80's slasher-horrors, I had the feeling that in reaching this point there was a compromise made - either because the premise was running out of steam whilst the script was being written, or because budget limitations held it back; either way, this seems at odds with the feel of many '80's cult classics that seemed to achieve a lot more story-wise whilst relishing in their low-budgeted shortcomings.  Also, it is possible to argue that this film could have done more with some of the ideas underlying the story - the impact of war and loss on families left behind, combat-stress related disorders - but this film doesn't aspire to be anything other than a celebration of genre movies; something that a few viewers might find a bit disappointing, perhaps.

Whilst there are few who would argue that a whole-scale 1980's movie revival is required, if Wingard's intention was to celebrate the films of this era that influenced him and many other film-makers - as well as being highly regarded by those who grew up watching them - then 'The Guest' achieves this.  It is helped in no small part by a magnetic and memorable turn by Dan Stevens - who seems set for some big roles after this - that, for once, actually leaves the audience wanting to see more.  Buoyed along by great supporting turns, and one of this year's coolest soundtracks, 'The Guest' is guaranteed a devoted cult following.  If you're on the same wave-length, you'll be happy to join these ranks...

Movie Review - Guardians of the Galaxy: you'll believe a tree can walk. And a raccoon can be a gun-toting, wisecracking bad-ass..!

For the second time this year, I was lucky enough to win tickets to an advance première screening of a Marvel movie, courtesy of Show Film First.  I’ve been looking forward to seeing ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ since it was announced.  As I’ve previously stated, this film represent quite a gamble for Marvel Studios – it’s a relatively lesser known title, it has some really out-there concepts, and is directed by someone who has only had a couple of films that haven’t broken beyond cult status.

But all of those things have made this a really fascinating prospect in my book.  Let’s start with the Director – James Gunn started as a writer, contributing to the Scooby Doo movies (though we won’t hold that against him), and the surprisingly good and thrilling Dawn of the Dead remake.  He then made two films which have cult status – it seems there aren’t many people that have seen them, but those who have hold them in high regard; firstly, the ‘80’s horror throw-back ‘Slither’, which mixes gross practical effects and a nice line in humour to fun effect.  Then there’s ‘Super’, a no-holds barred satire of Superhero movies (which would have made a far better sequel to ‘Kick-Ass’ than the one we actually got…).  Neither of these show the sort of family-friendly, Disney approved approach that you’d expect Marvel Studios to go for, with their gore, sex, bad language, and black humour.  So straight away the selection of Gunn to direct this is a choice that raised eyebrows.  But it makes sense – despite the elements of his films that won’t have sat right with Marvel’s bank-rollers at Disney, there are things that you can see are needed for a film like ‘Guardians’: when it’s right, there’s heart and earnestness, and also a total commitment to a premise, no matter how out-there.  Because, well, ‘Guardians’ has the most out-there premise of any Marvel Studio’s film so far.  If Gunn couldn’t get his cast, and the audience, to commit to a film that features all manner of strangely coloured aliens, cosmic weapons of annihilation, centred on a team including a talking raccoon and walking tree – then the whole film would have failed.

I am pleased to say that Gunn has succeeded in this first hurdle with aplomb.  The setting is so beautifully and vividly realised, and the characterisation so sharp, that even if you didn’t think you’d care about a talking raccoon and walking tree – let alone the goings on in some imagined far corner of the galaxy – but by the end of the film you will.  It helps that this film is anchored in a relatable way through a fantastic soundtrack of 70’s and 80’s pop and rock songs – these are on a tape belonging to Peter ‘Star Lord’ Quill (Chris Pratt), taken from earth as a child, but treasured by him as a link to his childhood home.  The songs serve to underpin key emotional or comedic moments in the story – helping to keep a balance between something that could have collapsed under the weight of, frankly, its ludicrousness – and keeping the audience invested.  It also reinforces that this movie is a sheer joyous blast of fun.

Meet 'The A-holes', a great cast of anti-heroes if ever there was one!

It’s ironic then that it starts with one of the heaviest opening scenes of any of the Marvel films so far, featuring Peter Quill as a boy; after this we jump forward 25 years to the grown up Quill.  Tonally, this is a jump which almost jars, but again the use of his mix tape helps ease the transition from a pretty heart-breaking scene to a more light-hearted one.  It also helps that, as soon as we join the adult ‘Star Lord’ out in space, the whole film looks absolutely gorgeous.  Visually, this film confidently straddles a line between comic-book style colourful and bright settings, while giving clothing, technology and vehicles a suitably worn and gritty feel.  I hope JJ Abrams watches this film and gets worried, because the new Star Wars film is going to have to do something pretty radical to not be upstaged by ‘Guardians’.

As this is the first outing for this team (as Gunn has said, ‘they’re not the Avengers, they’re the A-holes’), the plot mainly serves to bring the five members together, and also give them a suitable threat to respond to.  Quill has got hold of an artefact simply known as ‘the orb’, which has resulted in him being pursued by the agents of genocidal villain Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) – including his ally Gamora (Zoe Saldana) – and having a price put on his head when he betrays his former mentor Yondu (another bad-ass role for that master of, erm, bad-ass roles, Michael Rooker).  This puts him in the sights of bounty hunter Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper) – a genetically and cybernetically enhanced Racoon-like creature – and his bodyguard/associate Groot (who is basically a walking tree, voiced by Vin Diesel).  Thrown in to jail by the ‘space police’ Nova Corps, they encounter the muscular, brooding and scarred (in the physical and emotional sense) Drax (Dave Bautista) – who has vowed vengeance against Ronan and those associated with him.  At first the opportunity to score a big reward for the orb from the enigmatic Collector (played by Benicio Del Toro, in a disappointingly brief cameo) brings them together in an uneasy alliance, but once the true nature of the orb is revealed, they come together to prevent a genocide from taking place.

I guess one of the flaws this film has (of which there aren’t many) is that this plot is kind of secondary, in a way.  It throws the team together and gives them a reason to rise above being ‘A-holes’.  But that journey is the joy of this film, as the portrayal of each character is where this film completely excels.  Quill is very much the likeable, charming rogue, and is the perfect foil for the audience to gain a foothold in to this sometimes crazy galaxy.  He’s great with his guns, his fists (when he needs to be), and also with the one-liners (it’s a particular joy to hear him using references from ‘80’s pop culture to try and describe things to his associates!).  This would easily be a one-note performance, no matter how funny he is, but there are also moments that suggest underneath is still the boy who is hurting for what he lost when he left Earth as a Child.  But it never gets mawkish, as whenever an emotional moment feels like it might have overstayed its welcome, a cracking line brings back the humour.  Saldana as Gamora does a good job portraying an assassin who is trying to turn from an evil path and start making things right, and she has some great ‘will they-won’t they’ scenes with Quill.  Bautista as Drax is perfectly cast as the hulking, brooding, revenge driven ‘maniac’ Drax – although his character could potentially get lost when the on-liners start flying (one of his traits is based on the fact his race take everything literally), he gets some great moments which showcase not only his physicality but some skill at comedy – after all, for most comedy to work, you need an effective straight guy.

Pulling off these characters was the film's biggest challenge.  It succeeds emphatically!

But let’s face it, this film lives and dies on Rocket and Groot.  To be honest, I was probably an easier sell when it comes to these characters, as the mere concept of them just ignite this childlike glee (I mean, how can you NOT get excited about a gun toting, wise-cracking racoon?).  But I think there are very few people who, by the end of the film, won’t have been won over by them.  Not only are these CGI creations impressively realised, thanks to the script and performances, they feel like fully fleshed out, living characters.  The casting of two well-known actors to voice them could have easily been stunt casting, but they truly own these roles, to the extent you almost forget who is voicing them.  Not only is Rocket as bad-ass and funny as you’d expect, getting his fair share of great lines, there are moments that indicate some of the pain and torment behind the character, giving him a depth which might surprise a lot of people.  Similarly, although Groot only says three words (‘I am Groot’), he is utterly charming – and he gets the most crowd-pleasing moment in the whole movie, one which is probably on a par with the Hulk v Loki moment in ‘Avengers Assemble’; it utterly raised the roof at the screening I attended, and I expect it will go down well at each screening!

When it comes to other characters, it’s a mixed bag.  John C Reilly and Peter Serafinowicz as Nova Corp officers are perhaps a little underdeveloped, but Glenn Close as Nova Prime brings the authority you’d need from her brief role (by the way, I still can’t get over Glenn Close being in a Marvel movie – a crazy intergalactic adventure on, at that!).  With regards to the villains, Ronan makes an effective antagonist, driven by genocidal hatred, arrogant and heartless to the suffering he leaves behind – and pretty damn powerful to boot.  Nebula (Karen Gillen) – the ‘adopted’ sister of Gamora - looks fantastic, but isn’t quite given enough to do; the trailers teased a bruising confrontation between her and her ‘sister’, but isn’t given enough time to make a great impact.  Djimon Honsou’s Korath the Pursuer is probably the weakest of the villains in terms of time and development – he barely registers beyond a couple of scenes, which is a shame as he also looks good in the role and could have brought more presence.

If this film has a great weakness, it is that it does feel to force the plot through to bring the Guardians together, and as a result characters like those mentioned above don’t feel developed enough; also, for some people the threat might not be fully developed or explained enough to account for these rogues putting their differences aside to band together and stand against it.  However, the film moves at such a pace, throwing so many fantastic visuals, impressive action scenes, and superbly humorous lines, that you can overlook this and just go with it.  There might be a couple of wobbly moments in the first act where things get a bit exposition-y and portentous, threatening that it may in fact collapse under the ridiculousness of it all, but thanks to the excellent characterisation of the Guardians themselves, the viewer will be swept up by it all.

Amongst the amazing visuals in this film are this superb battle sequence - a space ship battle that doesn't actually take place in space!

Some people are saying this might be Marvel Studio’s best film yet – I don’t know if I’d go that far (it’s going to take a lot to knock the sheer, awesome, geek-gasmic joy of ‘Avengers Assemble’s spectacle from that position), but it is yet another example of Marvel being the best at what they do.  This film can be enjoyed if you’ve not seen any other Marvel Studio film, as it feels the most stand alone; although there are threads that could be picked up by a sequel, they don’t feel like annoying gaping plot holes.  On the other hand, if you have been following the Marvel Studios films, or are a big Marvel Comics fan, there is enough here to make you geek-out; we get to see Thanos in the full (and hear him speak, courtesy of Josh Brolin) for the first time, and ifyou know anything about this character’s history in the comics you will find his presence enough to make you grin like a mad titan..!  Sadly, I didn’t see the post-credits scene as it wasn’t added to the preview of the film – but hey, I get to look forward to seeing it next weekend when I take my kids to see the film!

So what has been Marvel Studio’s biggest gamble – in terms of premise, setting, and choice of Director – has paid off with an emphatic blast of fun, humour and action.  This is a triumph for all involved, and delivers one of the most flat-out entertaining movie experiences this summer.  Marvel Studios are going from strength to strength with each release, and cinema goers are reaping the (entertainment based) benefits.  Next up is the not-so-small matter of ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’, and you’d have to be a brave (or foolish) person to bet against this run of success continuing…

Is it even possible to improve the ‘Transformers‘ movies?

I'll start off this article with a confession: when I saw them at the cinema, I actually enjoyed the two Transformers movies 'Revenge of the Fallen' and 'Dark of the Moon' - despite the fact that, well, they're pretty widely disliked by critics (especially 'Revenge').  With regards to the former of these, when I saw it at the cinema it was during a very stressful time in my life, due to my family and my in-laws moving house at the same time, and all sorts of stuff around it.  So I guess I was in the state of mind where some escapist nonsense and brash, explosive action was what I needed.  Similarly, with 'Moon', the day I went to see that I'd just learnt I was getting a promotion at work with a pay-rise (yes!), so was feeling pretty jubilant - so being in such a good mood I was probably quite forgiving, and ready for some escapist entertainment.  And, yes, I was entertained.  However, was I bothered to watch either of these films again?  To be perfectly honest: no, not at all.  Although I've recently had to sit through 'Moon' again, now my 7-year-old son has discovered Transformers (more on that later), but I knew that if I had to then the flaws of those films would no doubt sour my experience.

Let's be straight here - I'm fully aware of the flaws of these films.  Although the first Transformers was a fun movie, with some spectacular action scenes and some humorous characterisation, it had one or two characters that really didn't need to be in it, and did sag in places under the weight of plot lines; and that's before getting on to some pretty crass, almost toilet-humour.  Look even closer, there was some questionable editing - an entire character disappears and is almost entirely forgotten about before the end.  Well, 'Revenge' and 'Moon' did the usual sequel thing - they sought to amplify the stakes, the intensity and the action - but also did the same to those flaws.  Many critics took umbrage with the crassness (and borderline racism) of some characterisation, not to mention some sexist clichés in how certain female characters are portrayed.  Having said that, when it comes to 'Revenge' all those involved hold up their hands to its flaws; arguably, it didn't help any that the film when in to production during the 2007/8 writer's strike - there's little doubt this had a negative effect.  However, a lot of the problems seem to stem from the 'Michael Bay' aesthetic - multiple (and pretty convoluted) plot lines, and ever-escalating and overly drawn-out action sequences.  By the time 'Moon' came along, the whole franchise had embraced the craziness of the Bay aesthetic, and if you can accept that - yes - it is ENTIRELY nonsensical, it is possible to have some fun with this film.  At the time of its release I was impressed with how Bay had embraced 3D and made it fit nicely to the action (this was at the time when a lot of studios had were still jumping on the bandwagon with post-converted 3D films) - especially one sequence where Bay strapped a 3D camera on to the helmet of a Skydiver in a wingsuit, before throwing them out of a plane.  There's a rashness about that which still makes me smile!

When you need action, you can always count on the Transformers to unleash utter 'Bay'-hem!  (...sorry..!)

But as I said, I enjoyed it at the time, yet wouldn't have been bothered to watch it again.  Although I have had to recently - I sat with my son and re-viewed it, and yes, the flaws were obvious.  The action sequences that had entertained me so much at the cinema, in a big screen in 3D, became increasingly drawn-out and, well, a bit tedious - especially in the final act.  It seems that these films are made purely for that initially 'wow!' when you see the action on the big screen - aside from that they are, well, disposable entertainment.  They're bubblegum.

But they are hugely expensive pieces of bubblegum, which in turn have been tremendously profitable.  'Fallen' took almost a Billion internationally, and the latest release, 'Age of Extinction', is currently the biggest film in China of all time.  It's amusing to see people getting the knives out regarding this film's performance at the US box office: yes, over the equivalent length of time from release, 'Extinction' has earned $75 million less than 'Moon' in the US - but given as it's the only film so far this year to open over $100 there, I don't think the makers will be losing any sleep.  'Extinction' will most likely be the year's biggest film internationally.  Despite the critic's opinions, and the patchy quality of the films, people still go to see 'Tranformers' movies in their droves.

And then there's the other angle: these films sell toys.  They are, at the end of the day, a feature-length advert for one of Hasbro's most popular toy-lines.  And it works - since he discovered Transformers, my son has been desperate to get the new Optimus Prime and Bumblebee.  Kids (especially boys) love Transformers - they've got something that appeals to a wide demographic: they're Robots, which a lot of kids find cool, that turn in to Sports Cars (another tick for a lot of kids), and they've got an epic story of good vs evil - that's 3 things that give them a huge appeal.  I should know - I'm part of the generation of kids who grew up in the 1980's and was won-over by the Transformers the first time.

So, is it the marketing aspect of these films which make critics so hateful towards them?  Or is it Michael Bay's style?  There are plenty of big, brash and slightly dumb action-movie franchises out there - but not all of them draw the opprobrium that the Transformers movies do.  Take, for example, the 'Fast & Furious' franchise, which gets more over-the-top with each film - but even critics by and large accept that they are just meant to be fun escapism, even if they have completely implausible elements (and they reached this consensus before the untimely death of Paul Walker).  Perhaps the flaws of the Transformers films just completely detract from any chance of enjoying them for most critics.

Because, well, if you want to be objective, there are things about these films which you have to look at and say, yes, they've done that effectively.  Take, for example, the realisation of the Transformers themselves.  Here, the effects team from ILM excel themselves, making intricately designed (one character, Ironhide, has about 10,000 moving parts just in ONE PART OF HIS BODY!) and animated photo-realistic characters.  It goes without saying too that Bay can stage an action sequence with aplomb (even if he often makes them go on, well, too long frankly); I think the final battle-scene in the first film is one of the last decade's best continuous action sequences.  Also, even though there is a lack of restraint for the most part, Bay is capable of putting small, character based touches in his film which are easy to overlook.  For example, a moment in the first film that made me smile, and which I guess few people would have noticed, is when two characters have been arrested and are being interrogated over computer hacking.  In one shot one of the characters finishes off a plate of do-nuts left by the interrogating officers, stating that if he didn't eat any he'd look guilty, so he ate the whole plate.  When we go back to these characters in this interrogation cell a little later, there is a packet of indigestion relief tablets on the table near the character that ate the do-nuts.  Perhaps if Bay could dial back the length of the action sequences, tidy up the number of plots, and allow for smaller moments like these, then perhaps the critical response to these films would improve?

There‘s no denying that the Transformers themselves are superbly realised...

Of course, the films themselves need to improve a lot in general.  The latest movie is no exception - although it was originally mooted as a 'reboot' for the franchise - moving on to new characters and new ideas - all of the flaws of the previous films are present, and dialled up even further.  I'd have been quite happy to avoid this film, but now my son is a Transformers fan, well I had little choice but to see this one!  I actually found this one mind-numbing in parts.  The new human characters feel mostly inconsequential, especially Mark Wahlberg's family; at least there was a point to Shia LaBoeuf's Sam Witwicky in the first film, because the 'boy and his first car' was a smart angle to base the nascent franchise on - but there's nothing like that to these new characters.  Ironically, only the villains feel to have some substance to them - Kelsey Grammer's CIA Black-Ops leader making an effective villain.  Even the presence of a great character actor like Stanley Tucci isn't enough; he goes from sneering, arrogant, scheming, corporate-scientist-type at his introduction, to screaming, prat-falling comedy relief in the film's final act - it just didn't make sense to me.

But then again, I don't think these films are meant to make sense, are they?  They are nonsense, and the people making them know it - and they're happy to do so, because they dominate the box-office and sell the toys.  And this is a shame, because - again, trying to be objective, and not as scathing or negative as most critics have been - there is still the potential that this series of films could have been a tremendously entertaining action saga; perhaps almost on a par with the Marvel Studios films.  This might seem like a bold, even ill-considered statement to make - but the reason I make it is because of what is supposed to be the main focus of these films: the Transformers themselves.

"They‘ve done WHAT to the Dinobots‘ back story??? NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

As Den of Geek recently wrote, one of the biggest flaws of these films is that in a lot of ways, the Transformers feel like bit players in their own movies.  They have a point - with a lot of the human characters feeling increasingly pointless and underdeveloped (charisma-free Irish Rally driver, I'm looking at you), and the plots becoming increasingly contrived, it does point the central conceit to the side somewhat.  Which is a shame, because the backstory of the Transformers is pretty damn epic, and could make for some really spectacular and dramatic sci-fi action.  But, as Den of Geek also point out, the handling of these characters is quite hit and miss.  At this point I should acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is how the long-term fans have reacted to these films; there is a lot of ire that, well, these films haven't attempted to base themselves exclusively upon the 1985 animated Transformers movie, as well as how the portrayal of certain characters has changed.  Like I said, I was 7 when the Transformers toys and cartoons originally came out in 1984, and I remember them well - I had a bunch of them, and I can remember being really disappointed one Christmas when I didn't get Optimus Prime, who was my favourite character.  However, it has to be said that a straight-up, live action attempt at something along the lines of that animated movie wouldn't really work; you have to acknowledge that for the majority of the cinema-going public, without human character as a lead-in to the Transformers world, there's nothing to make them relatable.  Also, it makes me laugh when people suggest that the Bay films are cynical marketing compared to this cartoon from their childhood - bear in mind the 1985 film killed off almost every single one of the established characters because the toy makers wanted kids to buy a new line of characters!

Epic story-telling?  Or just cynical marketing..?

Having said that, it‘s hard to deny that the potential of these characters and their mythology is, by and large, being wasted.  Even though Optimus Prime is every bit the great leader he was in the cartoons of my childhood (even though by ‘Moon‘ they‘d pretty much made him an indestructible, all-conquering warrior); and Bumblebee the faithful protector of his human friends, the rest of the characters just aren‘t given enough to shine as they have in the various cartoon and comics they‘ve featured in.  For example, when fan-favourite Shockwave appeared in ‘Moon‘, casual viewers would wonder what the fuss was about - he turns up, has a giant robot worm destroy stuff, then gets taken out by some human soldiers.  However, in the 1980‘s cartoon and comics he was such an evil, unhinged character that even the main villain of the series Megatron was afraid of him!  And don‘t get me started on the way some of the classic characters have died in this series...

Even ‘Extinction‘ continues this trend - despite efforts to take the series in a new direction, by having the Autobots hunted by Human Black Ops teams and an Alien Bounty Hunter, the film seems like it‘s not sure whether to trust in the universe it is trying to establish; when fan favourites the Dinobots appear, they are almost indistinguishable from how they were originally intended to be - instead there‘s talk about ‘Knights‘ and some ‘Legend‘, which isn‘t explored any further.  Because of the way the Transformers story was set up originally (the warring robots crashed on Earth millions of years ago and laid dormant, apart from the Dinobots who tried to hide amongst dinosaurs (!)), the inclusion of the Dinobots was going to make even less sense than the plots of the previous films in the franchise...

I think you could legitimately say that the people making these films only ever warmed to the concept of warring alien robots, disguising themselves as vehicles, fighting on earth - but they‘ve never truly embraced the source material as much as they should have done.  While Bay clearly puts a lot of craft in to pulling of the action and mayhem, and in integrating the excellent CGI creations in to it, you never feel that he has a particularly great love for these characters or their story.  Contrast this with, say, Guillermo Del Toro's 'Pacific Rim'; while that does have issues with the script, plot and acting, Del Toro's clear love and passion for the giant robots and giant monsters he's putting on screen is clear in every single frame of that movie.  Sometimes I have to wonder how the Transformers movies would have turned out if they'd have been made by someone with the same passion and love Del Toro brought to his film...

By completely embracing the mythology, dropping unnecessary characters and plots-lines, and trimming back the action sequences so they're more focused and coherent, the Transformers series could become a much better franchise.  However, the continued financial success of these films seems to pretty much ensure they‘ll carry on in the manner they have been over these four films.  Regardless, children like my son will continue to watch them - just as he has been doing, everyday, since he properly discovered Transformers.  I can‘t be too down on him about it - ironically, he only became interested in Transformers because at his school they watched an episode of the 1980‘s cartoon as part of a history project about that decade.  How surreal to think that my child-hood is now someone‘s history project..!  I still can‘t convince him that the 1980‘s Optimus Prime looks far cooler than the Bay movie version, though... 

No, son... The Original is STILL the best..!

The Most Relentlessly Awesome Films Ever: Fargo

I‘ve been really busy lately, so it‘s taken me longer to get this post written up than I‘d hoped; but I still intend to stick to writing one of these ‘Awesome Films‘ pieces every two months - I just made it with this piece to keep to this target!  Without further ado...

THE MOST RELENTLESSLY AWESOME FILMS EVER - PART FIVE:

FARGO

Some films are so great you have to watch them as many times as you can; whereas some films that are great can make such an impression on you that even if you only see them once in decades, they're still etched on your memory.  For me, 'Fargo' is one of those films.  I saw it upon its first release in the UK in 1996, and immediately realised what a classic it is.  Although I didn't have the opportunity to watch it again until only recently, so much of that film had stuck in my mind, things that mark out what makes the film truly great: the superb performances form the cast; the brilliant script, at once humourous while shot through with noirish tendencies; and the excellent direction and cinematography.  This especially captures the bleak wintry snow-scapes of the setting, the unglamorous yet often warm and homely places the characters live and pass through, not to mention framing some shocking moments of violent.


The Coen Brothers have a pretty unique sense of humour, and in Fargo it is on display to the fore.  There is not the comedy of one-liners and pratfalls, or awkward and ridiculous situations; they find humour in the way someone's regional dialect and accent affects their speech patterns - or in the slight flaws in their character which might give way to slightly delusional behaviour.  What I find interesting in watching Fargo is how you can almost sense them in each scene smiling as they delight in hearing the characters talking with their broad North Dakotan (Dakotoan???) accent; every 'Yah!',  every 'Shoot!'  Conversations between characters are, for the most part, filmed with the camera being close enough you feel that you're part of the conversation.  This is an interesting counterpoint to the way some of the acts carried out by certain characters - especially the more violent acts - were filmed: at a distance in most cases.  It's like the Coens aren't as interested in the actions of the characters as they are in the characters themselves.  Just as much time is given over to apparently mundane conversations as it is to key, plot/character developing ones.  Even an important piece of diaologue, which provides a turning point for the kidnapping investigation which is central to the plot, is filmed as though the Coens are taking amusement in the way the man speaks it, than the impact it has on the plot.  Having said that, it is a classic moment, and one that stayed in my mind years after watching the film originally.

In most repsects, Fargo is a typical Noir: a luckless man hires two thugs to kidnap his wife, to get a ransom from her wealthy dad.  It goes to the appropriately dark places - there are a few murders on the way - but there is so much more that makes this a thriller that transcends genres.  For a start, the icy and sometimes bleak landscapes of North Dakota are not usually associated with violent crime and kidnapping - at least, not to the eyes of most film makers.  Secondly, the portrayal of central characters could feel at home in any drama; you have William H Macy‘s Jerry Lundegaard, the least successful salesmen at his father-in-law‘s business, with a wife who matter-of-factly points this out to him frequently, and a teenage son who doesn‘t even listen to him.  Macy‘s performance is excellent, it really put him on the map as a great character actor, he fully conveys the desperation underneath Lundegaard‘s meek but polite exterior.  Especially once the kidnap plan he instigated starts to unravel.  Then you have Frances McDormand‘s deservedly Oscar-winning turn as Sheriff Marge Gunderson.  The Coen‘s spend time setting up her marriage to Norm ‘Son of a‘ Gunderson, before she heads out to investigate three murders the kidnappers have committed.  She is heavily pregnant, but doesn‘t let it stop her doing her job.  She is the moral centre of the film, never perturbed by the increasingly gruesome scenes she has to investigate, but always driven to solve the crimes and bring those responsible to justice.  She retains a fairly simple, decent outlook on life throughout, she even seems apologetic to the kidnapper she shot in the leg whilst he was trying to escape - before expressing her disbelief that anyone would do what they did ‘jsut for a bit of money‘.  Her portrayal of Marge could have been centred on her simply being the determined and perceptive sheriff - but we also get a rounded portrayal of the woman she is too, someone who still seems to believe in the basic decency of people.  There is a scene which almost seems superfluous to the plot - while following up a lead she meets up with an old school friend whose advances she deters in a way at once both naive and definite; it might not relate to the kidnapping part of the narrative, but it perfecty serves the character, and reveals her humanity.

Amidst these great performances, every incidental character is virtually unforgettable due to the Coen‘s knack for capturing the most mundane detail of every exchange due to their clear fascination and amusement with the local dialect.  It is in these that the film finds much of its humour (aside from the unacknowledged absurdity of Lundegaard‘s scheme), but it is with a real warmth and affection for it.  These provide such memorable lines as "goin‘ crazy over by the lake" or "kinda funny lookin‘":

Despite this, Fargo is ultimately a superb thriller, thanks in no small part to the performances of Steve Buscemi (he's the "kinda funny lookin" one!) and Peter Stormare, a virtually mute psychopath.  Buscemi has already established himself as one of the best character actors of the ‘90‘s following turns in films such as 'Reservoir Dogs', but here he is the right mix of sleaziness and ruthlessness - reinforcing how great he can be in any role.  Stormare gets the film's most violent moments (including the infamous wood chipper scene), he is at once as enigmatic as he is frighteningly dangerous.

This film pretty much changed the way everyone views wood chippers, for ever...

‘Fargo‘ is at once a seemingly incongruous mix of elements - wry observational humour, strong characterisation, and a film-noir plot in a distinctly non-noir setting.  But the Coen‘s wry observational style, balanced with a warm sense of humour towards the people they‘re portraying, whilst giving the most heinous events an underlying sense of absurdity, make this film a classic.  Once you‘ve watched it, the mark left on your memory is as striking as blood on snow.

Movie Review: Oculus - the mirror crack‘d...

I've said it before and I'll say it again - when it comes to Horror movies, your mileage may vary as to the extent you find them scary, or if not at all.  For someone it might be playing on deep seated phobias or anxieties; or it could be primal fears of the dark, or strangers; or being alone; for someone else it could be taking something from everyday life and making it sinister either through supernatural or the deeds of (evil) men.  'Oculus' aims to do the latter, being the tale of a haunted mirror, responsible for several deaths over the years.  Sadly it doesn't pull off the trick of being a genuinely scary or even remotely frightening or disturbing horror; because when a horror movie tries to use something to scare us, there should be some kind of underlying logic to support it.  'Oculus' makes the cardinal sin in the genre of having central characters do something which, after post-viewing consideration, doesn't really add-up.  It undermines the whole film, but to be fair, it's not particularly frightening to even before considering this flaw.

This film tells the tale of siblings Kaylie and Tim Russell (played by Karen Gillan and Brenton Thwaites respectively) who, years after the death of their parents, are reunited when the brother is released from a mental institution - you see, he shot their father, who apparently killed their mother.  His sister has spent the years tracking down what she believes responsible - a haunted mirror, and now she has her brother to help her, she is seeking to destroy the mirror, and in so doing slay the entity/demon (it's never made clear exactly what it is) responsible for their parent's death.  She takes the mirror, and her brother, back to the house where their parents died, with an elaborate plan to demonstrate that the mirror IS responsible for these deaths, and also finally destroy it - a plan involving several plants, battery powered lights, lots of cameras, and a ceiling mounted, timer triggered, spring loaded anchor (yes, you read that right).

The narrative then switches between the siblings in the present day, and ten years previous, portraying the events which lead to the deaths of their parents.  To tell this story the film employs some of the tropes of the genre - flickering lights, dead eyed ghosts (well, mirror eyed), and hackneyed jump-scares.  It never comes close to building the tension enough for most of these to really be effective, and although there are a couple of discomfiting scenes which will make you squirm (and possibly feel a little ill), this film rarely meets its potential in terms of being part of the horror genre.

It's not for want of trying though.  The film takes the time to set up the 'rules' for its supernatural activity quite well - hence the efforts Gillan's character Kaylie goes to in order to prove and document the entity.  At the same time you can't help but feel there are some missed opportunities along the way.  Her brother Tim, having spent years receiving psychiatric treatment over the events that led up to their parent's death, is sceptical and tries to convince his sister that she is suffering from a delusional recollection of what took place ten years previously.  This is an idea that could have been invested in more strongly by the writers if you ask me - to create a real sense of duality about what they are seeing as the film progresses, and from this some true mystery and suspense - which could have resulted in a truly killer twist at the end.  Similarly, given the basis is an entity/haunting originating from a mirror, there could have been some mining on the idea of reflections and a twisted version of reality - this, again, could have played back to the psychological elements the writers chose to overlook.

Doctor Who fans will be pleased to see Karen Gillan in her first major film role.  Aside form that, there‘s not much that‘s pleasing about this movie...

So instead of this, and potential for these undertones are quickly forgotten because the brother soon comes to side with his sister and join with her scheme.  The film then becomes a bit of a confusing muddle as the events of the present and ten years previous begin to seemingly overlap -though it's never clear why or for what reason - other than it's the entity 'messing with them'.  Perhaps the whole endeavour would have been lifted a little if the performances had really sold the terror (or madness) of the situation; I won't lay the blame at the leads (as a viewer of both Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who it's no bad thing to see Katee Sackhoff and Gillen on the big screen), but rather a script and direction which don't give them the opportunity to portray this effectively.

Where the whole film reveals itself as having been a pretty pointless endeavour is at the end - and here I will warn of SPOILERS!!! as I need to discuss this in some detail.  Basically the film aims to have a downer ending, as many a great horror film does - but here it makes what's gone before it feel redundant.




We end with Kaylie being killed the device she rigged to destroy the mirror is triggered by tim; the film then overlaps the scene of him being taken away by the police by the same aftermath on the night his parents died.

Now, when you think about it, there's a pretty significant logic gap here which undermines pretty much all of the film; if Gillan's character wanted to prove the haunting and destroy the mirror, she could have just left the dog, and the houseplants, and the cameras, and let the timer run out and destroy the mirror - neither she nor her brother needed to be there at all.  Now I'm not saying that many other horror films have logic gaps - but usually you can overlook them because what you've just seen has succeeded in frightening or even disturbing you; this film can't even manage that.  For me, it commits the greatest sin a horror film can - it relies on illogical actions or behaviour on the part of its characters in order to carry the narrative on.  In so doing, it shoots itself in the foot.

This film doesn‘t quite pull of the scares it wants to.  I know a Bear that‘s creepier than this...

I came out of this film feeling that I'd just wasted the last 100 minutes watching it - and that's a shame, because there is a decent idea that this film is based upon - sadly the writers didn't use it effectively or to its full potential.  If you're a seasoned horror fan, you won't find anything here that will satisfy you; if you're a fan of the leads you may feel a bit cheated too.  In all, I think the people who wrote and made this film should take a good long look at themselves in a mirror, and ask how they can do better than this next time...