The Last Airbender (2010)

Posted on December 4, 2012 by badblokebob

Consensus holds that the work of once-acclaimed director M. Night Shyamalan has managed a near-perfect trajectory of decreasing returns. I’m not talking about box office — I have no idea (or much interest) in how that’s gone for him — but quality, starting with supernatural chiller The Sixth Sense and sliding gradually to the nadir of The Happening. I’m not as convinced (I quite liked some of his efforts along the way), but it’s fair to say The Happening was pretty awful and certainly his worst… until this.

Adapted from a US animated series (but having to drop the series’ Avatar prefix thanks to a certain other 3D blockbuster), Shyamalan’s live-action rendition condenses the storyline of the first season into a 90-something-minute movie. You can immediately see some problems are going to arise just from the maths involved. I should say, I’ve never seen the original series, so I have no idea how Shyamalan succeeds in translating it. There was plenty of controversy in his casting, which included Caucasians in the roles of apparently-Asian characters in the original, but happily using them for the villains. I don’t know that that bothers me so much, but it seemed to be a watershed moment for some.

Even ignoring the inevitable prejudice of an adaptation not living up to fans’ expectations, however, The Last Airbender is a mess. You don’t even need to see it in the notoriously too-dark post-production 3D to find yourself confused about what’s going on. The plot pings back and forth between locations and characters, basing itself in a heavy mythology that isn’t adequately explained. Chunks of it seem to be missing, conveyed through clunky voiceover rather than on-screen action. The first rule of screenwriting — literally, the first — is Show Don’t Tell, but Shyamalan does exactly the opposite.

In fairness to him, there’s some defence to be found in the trivia section of IMDb: “Almost 30 minutes of footage was cut from the theatrical release because Paramount Pictures wanted the film converted to 3D as quickly as possible, in an effort to save money.” That certainly might explain some of the awkward jumps in plot, and at times we can see a conversation taking place but only get to hear a narrated summary. Still, I don’t think these edits cover all of the film’s flaws — not even close — but it explains some of them.

About the only good thing I can recall is the CGI, which is fine. But you get good CGI everywhere these days, so it’s far from a reason to watch. The action sequences it’s employed for are largely uninspiring, their style stolen from 300 or other equally familiar sources. The acting is routinely appalling too — Dev Patel, for instance, is more like his lacklustre first role in Skins than his BAFTA-nominated, worldwide-attention-grabbing turn in Slumdog Millionaire.

I wouldn’t call myself a Shyamalan apologist, but I think he has at times suffered harshly at the hands of critics and audiences disappointed that he’s never re-reached the heights of The Sixth Sense (though, personally, I prefer Unbreakable anyway). Unfortunately, The Last Airbender is more fuel to the fire. It’s not only Shyamalan’s worst film, it’s a plain bad film by any reasonable measure. Laughably awful, even.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

The Last Airbender featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2012, which can be read in full here.

The Keep (1983)

Posted on December 3, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #92
Michael Mann | 91 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | UK / English | 18 / R

Michael Mann is arguably best known for his modern, urban, slick, intricate crime thrillers — films like Heat, Collateral and Miami Vice; all movies that I have greatly enjoyed (yes, including Miami Vice). So it’s a bit of a surprise to discover his second feature in the director’s chair was a supernatural fantasy/horror set during World War II. I confess that I’d never even heard of it before I read Mike’s piece at Films on the Box the other day, after which my interest was sufficiently piqued to make sure to watch it (obviously, as there’s now this review).

And it’s really good… for about half an hour or so. The opening sees a platoon (or whatever) of Nazis arrive in a remote Romanian mountain village to occupy a deserted castle for some kind of defence purposes that don’t look to make a great deal of strategic sense. But shh, because the castle — the titular keep — has walls lined with metal crosses and, spookily, is built back to front: as Jürgen Prochnow’s character, the One Good Nazi, observes, “this place was not constructed to keep something… out.” Oh dear.

At this point Mann — on both writing (adapted from a novel by F. Paul Wilson) and directing duties — has managed to turn in a film that is genuinely creepy, with an effective sense of foreboding and mystery. But the longer it goes on, the more evident it becomes that chunks of the story are missing, the result of the studio hacking away at Mann’s three-hour-ish cut. Events become convoluted and borderline nonsensical, and whatever thematic points the film has to make about evil and belief get lost in the mix. I’m certain there’s something there, because long-ish discussions between various pairs of characters remain, but what Mann was driving at, God only knows.

Should we long for a Director’s Cut, then? Maybe that would be an improvement, but I’m not convinced it would be good per se. You see, the film doesn’t just stick to giving us Nazis vs Whatever The Keep Contains, oh no. First the SS turn up, led by a Properly Evil Nazi, played straight by Gabriel Byrne. Escalation, great. Then there’s Ian McKellen as a professor drafted in to make sense of the keep’s mysteries. Also great — even the Good Nazi is going to have to die, right? Who better to root for than a saved-from-a-concentration-camp Jewish professor.

But oh, then we meet Scott Glenn, and his glowing purple eyes, riding across Europe on a motorbike to somehow save the day. And that entire element of the film is awfully hokey. Not to mention that it leads to a morally dubious sexual liaison: Glenn persuade some border guards to let him pass using only the power of his glowy eyes; later, about five minutes after meeting the ostensible heroine (McKellen’s character’s daughter, the only female), he’s managed to persuade her to wriggle around naked on his lap — coincidence? I guess this sequence is meant to be titillating, but the random grabbing, fidgetiness, soft focus, and the film’s constant softcore porno music (which naturally continues unabated during this segment) make it just laughable.

There are plus points, but they all come with a commensurate downside. The creature is well-realised at first, with some nice animated effects that are more effective than much of the over-cooked CGI spectacle we’d get today. The more we see of him, however, the less power he holds — he ends up essentially a very tall man. OK, it’s a bit better than that makes it sound, but the mysterious billowing smoke was spookier. The film on the whole is nicely shot, with some real standout moments of cinematography. But slow-mo and a smoke machine both get overused by the end, lending many of the visuals a tacky ’80s edge.

So too the score by Tangerine Dream, which has the odd moody moment but also plenty of cringe-inducing synths. Vangelis’ work on Blade Runner is a good example of how this most ’80s of sounds can age well; The Keep is an example of when it can’t. (For more on that element in particular, do see the ghost of 82’s review.) And talking of sound, what the bloody hell is going on with the accents? This Romanian village seems to be located somewhere in the US, including McKellen offering an OTT Chicago twang. Even his considerable acting skills get buried beneath that.

One thing the film never manages to be is remotely scary. It’s not aiming for cheap jump- or gore-based shocks (although there is a little goriness, it’s quite light; triply so by today’s standards), but it doesn’t manage any significant senses of dread or creepiness. As noted, early on it seems to be heading in the right direction — even the secluded mountain village, nestled in a harsh landscape but with greener-than-green grass and garishly painted houses, and towered over by the foreboding slab of stone that is the titular structure, is an uncanny start — but it never makes good on the promise.

I’d love to see a remake of The Keep; one with a boldness and a vision to take what works, ditch what doesn’t, and craft a suitably creepy Nazis-vs-the-supernatural horror movie out of what’s left. Of course, I’m thinking specifically about what I feel works and doesn’t — anyone who’s read the novel, which apparently is much chunkier and ties into other works by the author, would surely have a very different opinion and despise what I’d do given half a chance. Indeed, though the film has been disowned by Mann (reportedly he’s even blocked it being released on DVD), it has quite the cult following — look it up on LOVEFiLM, or at the boards on IMDb, and four- or five-star ratings abound, with people numbering it among their favourite films ever.

I would love to join their ranks, because there are numerous exciting ideas and moments of quality filmmaking to be found here; but I won’t be, because there’s too much muddled dross packed in around them. The result is that quite-rare thing: a decidedly mediocre film that I’m actually glad I’ve seen. But, unless someone wants to hire me for that remake, never again.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)

Posted on December 2, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #28
John Singleton | 103 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | Germany & USA / English | 12 / PG-13

I never thought I’d watch, and certainly not enjoy, the Fast and the Furious series, but a few years ago (after the second film hit cinemas, I think — which would be almost a decade!) the first seemed to pick up a bit of praise from movie magazines and/or websites that were generally to my taste, so I gave it a go. I quite liked it, in the mode it was intended — a brain-off good-time action-y movie. I thought I was done there though, thanks to the much-maligned sequel — mainly because of its ridiculous title, which is still great fodder for a quick joke whenever a sequel is announced and people speculate on what it might be called. But sometimes, something compels you to give something a go…

Here, then, we find poor acting, a plot done by the numbers, and a style that sometimes feels like a rap video writ into a film. Oh dear. Yet the chases and other car-based action sequences are pretty coolly done, and there’s more of them than I remember there being in the first film. That’s a definite plus — really, it’s all you want from a film like this.

The drivers do a lot of trash talking… usually when they’re in cars by themselves. Oh dear. Then again, I regularly talk to myself when I’m driving alone, so either the film’s fine or I’m appearing in a trashy B-movie. Or just think I am. In a way, these poorer qualities — the dialogue, the acting, and so on — are part of the experience of the film, and somehow manage to endear it. So bad it’s good? At points, yes.

It’s worth noting it was directed by John Singleton, who started out with the acclaimed social drama Boyz n the Hood. How he’s fallen: via stuff you’ve never heard of to the Shaft remake, this, and most recently the poorly-reviewed Taylor Lautner From Twilight-starring Abduction. Well, each to their own.

Talking of crew, the music (well, the score) is by David Arnold, the recently-deposed Bond maestro. It was somewhat pleasing to see his name appear in the credits because I thought I could hear Bondian bits creeping in; I thought they’d just nabbed bits of the score from Die Another Day or something (such borrowing is not unheard of these days: I didn’t mention it in my review in the end, but I noticed during the credits that Unstoppable borrowed three cues from AVP, of all things).

In the UK, the film was cut by 11 seconds to reduce some violence and get a 12 certificate; later, it was re-rated uncut at 15. This is the kind of thing that really bugs some people — cue rants about the controlling nature of the BBFC — but, in instances like this, I couldn’t care less. For one thing it’s the distributor’s choice, not the BBFC’s. That’s not always wholly placating — see Casino Royale — but, sometimes, why care? So we lose “3 kicks, a stamp and a spit, all delivered to a prone man” — so what? The scene’s still in the film, there’s just less of it. I agree with people’s frustration when cuts are major, but in cases like this, perspective is needed.

Ultimately, 2 Fast 2 Furious is like cheap fast food: you know it’s made of trash, high in fat and sugar, liable to rot something in your head — and just really bad for you fullstop… yet it’s an enjoyable guilty pleasure once in a while. If you don’t identify with that feeling then you’re a better man than me, and you’ll probably never like this film.

By rights I should give 2F2F 2 stars — it would even provide the opportunity for some kind of gag connected to its title. But, no. I don’t know if it just caught me in the right mood or if it has something surprising under the hood, but I wound up rather enjoying it. It’s junk food, but sometimes that hits the spot.

2 Fast 2 Furious is on ITV2 tonight at 10:50pm, and again on Friday 7th at 10pm, and probably regularly after that too.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

Tombstone (1993)

Posted on December 1, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #5
George P. Cosmatos | 119 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | 15 / R

The story of the OK Corral is one I know by name only; I haven’t even seen the Doctor Who serial about it. I shan’t be doing a comparison of this to the numerous other cinematic retellings then, though such ground was already superbly covered a couple of years back at Riding the High Country (for a belated entry and full set of links, look here; the piece on Tombstone is here).

Not knowing more than the name, and a few key players, I fully expected the gunfight at said corral to be the story’s climax. Maybe it is in other versions, but here it comes about halfway through. It’s the pivot around which the story turns, however, with the first half building to it and the second handling its consequences. It may not be the climax, but it’s still the key incident.

Much of the film is driven by its characters, I felt, more so than the fights or plots that they embroil themselves in; though it’s still suitably enlivened by action, both dramatic and violent. It’s populated by a helluva cast — lots of recognisable faces, even if some weren’t yet names at the time. Val Kilmer is undoubtedly the stand-out. He starts off by giving a deliciously camp performance, but unveils layers as Doc Holliday’s story unfolds. Other notable performances come from lead Kurt Russell and villain Michael Biehn, though the latter is slightly shortchanged by having to share villain duties with an unremarkable Powers Boothe.

That may be down to historical accuracy. There’s a distinct feeling of veracity to proceedings, and as I understand it a concerted effort was made in that regard. The Movies perhaps shouldn’t worry about sticking too closely to fact (if you want an accurate lesson, read a textbook), but when they can manage to be both factually accurate and entertaining, it’s all the better. Cosmatos & co appear to balance this well.

Tombstone was released after the revisionist Unforgiven, but it doesn’t feel like it. Somehow it’s more traditional, almost like it was made in the ’70s or ’80s — not to the extent of portraying a simplistic “white hats good, black hats bad” mentality of earlier eras, but with less of the ’90s gloss or awareness that might be perceived, through contrast, in Eastwood’s Oscar-winner. Not that there’s anything wrong with that — I liked it very much.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

The 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012

Posted on December 1, 2012 by badblokebob

I don’t normally do much (or anything) to mark Christmas here on 100 Films — there are only so many Christmas-related films, after all; besides which, I normally spend December trying to push through the final few films to get to my goal. But this year is slightly different (only slightly), because I’m giving you, dear readers, the gift of the 100 Films Advent Calendar!

In true advent calendar fashion, that means one brand-spanking-new review every day up ’til Christmas. I can’t promise they’ll be big, and I certainly can’t promise they’ll be clever, but there’ll be one every day. Since when were advent calendars meant to be good for you anyway?

Plus, I know it’s not traditional, but all modern examples seem to do it, so in their vein Christmas Day itself will come with an extra-big bumper review — the only film I’ve seen so far this year that has definitely earmarked itself a place on my annual top ten! So if you’re avoiding the day itself, or just need an escape from the family for a bit (who doesn’t?), there’ll be that slab of un-Christmassy merriment awaiting you here. You’re welcome.

And the other advantage of this is that it should put a good dent in my thoroughly ludicrous backlog. Hurrah! (And if you want an idea of what reviews might be coming up, take a look at that page and start guessing.)

If you so desire, you can check this post regularly over the next three-and-a-half weeks as it will be updated with new links. Or just see them on the front page. Or in your email inbox (if you already follow this blog with a WordPress account, you can change email notification settings here). Or follow me on Twitter.

Come back in the morning, then, when the first review will be revealed…

December 1st