Category Archives: 2009

Alien vs Predator – Part 1

Posted on by
Reply

If you happen to keep an eye on my coming soon page or have been following me on Twitter, you may’ve noticed that I recently watched all eight films in the Alien, Predator and Alien vs Predator franchises, the majority of them for the first time.

As I’m sure you know, I normally only review films I’ve not seen before. In the interests of being thorough, however (and following in the footsteps of Casino Royale, Cube, and the first three… well, really, all the Star Wars films), I’ve also reviewed the only two I’d seen before — perhaps unsurprisingly, Alien and Predator themselves.

2009 #13a
Alien: The Director’s Cut

“Alien feels unchanged. It’s been said many times before but, first and foremost, it’s a horror movie — it just happens to be one set in space with plenty of sci-fi trappings… Whatever effect Scott’s trims may have had, they haven’t made it any less effective in this regard” – Read more…

2009 #16a
Predator

“it’s an entertaining war flick that turns into a sci-fi/action/horror skirmish thingy — but it doesn’t have the same finesse that imbues Alien and its sequel.” – Read more…


Reviews for the remaining six films won’t be too far behind.

Marnie (1964)

Posted on by
1
2009 #6
Alfred Hitchcock | 125 mins | DVD | 15 / PG

MarnieMarnie is a film grounded in the field of psychoanalysis, though that word is never used and none of the characters are a therapist. Instead, it just concerns itself with a main character suffering under the strain of repressed childhood memories, though this isn’t revealed until the end. Unfortunately, psychoanalysis was only an emerging area at the time of production, and the price Marnie pays for being ahead of the pack in the mid ’60s is that it looks dated and inaccurate now.

For one thing, it’s slow paced. Not necessarily a bad thing, and here it does serve to gradually build some elements, but at times you wonder where it’s all going. Part of the problem is that much of the story’s first half is just a distraction from the main point, in which case I suppose it’s Hitchcock’s famous MacGuffin; but the changes between elements of crime, romance, family drama and internal struggle come across not as a measured part of a considered whole, but as a mishmash of genres. One might consider this a good thing, adding variety and complexity to the film, but as it merrily switches back and fore it doesn’t seem to fulfill any genre to its full potential.

That isn’t to say Marnie is meritless. Plot-wise, the central mystery does get more intriguing as it goes on and the whole film gets better with it. It’s not just that it becomes a more interesting story, but almost every scene is more engaging, better written, acted and directed. Also, without a single frame of grinding, moaning, kicking or screaming, it contains one of the most sinister (suggested) sex scenes in the movies, thanks to the combined skills of Hitchcock and his two stars.

In the title role, a lot is asked of Tippi Hedren — a lot more than she had to manage in The Birds the year before — but she rises to the occasion, most of the time. It’s through no fault of hers that Marnie’s aversion to red is overplayed, especially as it’s the picture constantly fading through red that almost pushes it to the point of amusement. This is again a problem of being one of the first to try to film an entirely internal struggle. In the other lead role is Sean Connery, just two years after he created James Bond on screen, and here he plays a smooth playboy-esque character with a fondness for women and a tendency to violent outbursts. Not straying too far afield then, but he fits the role like a glove.

In this DVD age, I’d also like to point out that the film’s trailer is truly fantastic. Narrated by Hitchcock, he merrily takes the mick out of his own movie for several minutes. It’s a slice of joyous irreverence that makes you wish he’d brought some of it to the actual film, and wonder what would happen if a film was advertised with such a tonally incongruous trail today.

Trailer aside, Marnie is sub-par Hitchcock, but even then his considerable skill coaxes it to greater heights than many — perhaps any — other director could have achieved with the basic material.

3 out of 5

Angels & Demons (2009)

Posted on by
1
2009 #25
Ron Howard | 138 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13

This review contains minor spoilers.

Three years ago, I found myself at a packed midnight first-screening of The Da Vinci Code, the Tom Hanks-starring Ron Howard-directed adaptation of the Dan Brown-written novel that’s probably only second-most-read to The Bible by now. I liked the book — its prose is a long way from great, that’s true, but the storytelling is fantastic, helped in no small part by its undermining of the Christian church so thoroughly and consistently that it can only be described as wish fulfillment (well, it fulfilled my wishes). I liked the film too — again, it’s not great, but it was an entertaining adaptation.

Despite this, I’ve never read another Dan Brown book. Not even Angels & Demons, which also stars Robert Langdon (that’s Hanks’ character, in case you’ve somehow missed this entire phenomenon) but was written first. Rather than being yet another prequel, however, Howard and co. have chosen to make it as a sequel — entirely logical in the past, though these days it almost makes them seem behind trend. In spite of my unfamiliarity with the source, I once again found myself at the film’s first screening here — though it says something about how well The Da Vinci Code was received (i.e. not very) that Angels & Demons made its bow on a damp Thursday afternoon in a barely-attended screening.

It may come as a surprise that Angels & Demons has a subtly different feel to its predecessor. It still concerns itself with Hanks’ Langdon dashing about trying to solve insanely cryptic clues in a limited timeframe, surrounded by irritating policeman, suspicious friendly characters, and a girl who is almost pointless. However, it’s a lot less talky — there are few grand theories to be explained, and while there are still a few exposition-dense monologues they aren’t the focus in the same way. Instead, with just an hour to solve each set of puzzles, our intrepid symbologist hares around Rome, desperately trying to save lives. Unfortunately, the trail he’s following doesn’t seem as well thought out as the previous tale’s mysteries, and the speed at which they must be solved seems designed to gloss over this — there’s no time for the viewer to consider everything Langdon’s telling us, we just have to accept it.

If that wasn’t enough, the film comes with a moderately hefty sci-fi element — yes, really — which makes a huge change tonally. While The Da Vinci Code is patently not based in much truth, both Brown’s novel and the adaptation mixed in enough facts, half-truths and very plausible lies to give it a real-world believability. The abundance of tie-in books and documentaries proving or disproving its theories show that people bought it. There’ll be no such thing here though: from the beginning the use of CERN and the Large Hadron Collider (y’know, the thing that’s going to end the world) and a theoretical bomb adds a science fiction feel, and while it’s really no more than “a very big bomb” for most of the film the damage is already done. To cap it off, the CGI-decked finale — which is further bogged down with feats of logic and physics that require at least a little suspension of disbelief — brings the film more in line with science fiction blockbusters than thriller blockbusters.

All this does nothing for the central villains either. When judged independently, the Illuminati are actually more believable than the Priory of Sion — they’re certainly more based in fact — but they come across as less so because no one’s bothered to construct that web of facts required to sell the half-truths, and in turn to sell the lies. Nonetheless, the film does a good job of hiding the Secret Villain’s identity. Well, sort of. Those not paying any attention may guess it relatively early and turn out to be right; those following it only slightly more closely may be lured astray by a couple of clear red herrings; while those indulging in an intelligent game of guess-the-twist will flip around a bit more as various characters show slight ambitions or potential motivations that suggest they may be the subject of a Shocking Twist. That it eventually comes back round to where you always thought it would is not necessarily a bad thing, but neither is it as surprising as the makers wished we thought.

Howard does his best to ring tension and excitement out of all this, but the problem is fundamentally the screenplay — as with The Da Vinci Code, adapted by an overpaid Akiva Goldsman, this time with David Koepp credited too. Of course, they’re lumbered with Brown’s novel, but that doesn’t excuse some truly clunking dialogue. It’s also their fault that the cast are so underused. Ayelet Zurer has perhaps the most thankless part as Token Female with minimal relation to the plot, though one of the screenplay’s wisest decisions is in modifying her backstory — based on summaries I’ve read, in the novel it’s near identical to that of Sophie’s from Da Vinci Code. (That’s Audrey Tautou’s character. Yes, I’d forgotten her name too.)

Despite being the lead, Tom Hanks has little more to do than look concerned and explain the reasons for all the running around. On the positive side, as silly hairstyles are only allowed if you’re Australian this Summer, at least Langdon’s ludicrous lengthy locks have been lopped off. Few among the rest of the cast fare any better, with Stellan Skarsgard being particularly underused — his primary function seems to be Quite Famous so we’ll consider him a decent contender to be the Secret Villain. The other star name, Ewan McGregor, does the best he can with perhaps the film’s best character — his Irish Camerlengo is more interestingly conflicted than the film deserves or can manage, and as such is underwritten. That said, he’s stuck with an Irish accent that comes and goes and is still lumbered with at least one dire speech. Only Armin Mueller-Stahl emerges with much dignity left, in the medium-sized role of fellow Secret Villain possibility Cardinal Strauss.

In another misstep, Angels & Demons exhibits an overuse of special effects. It may not seem like the sort of film that would need them, but the sci-fi side of things brings plenty of CGI along whenever it rears its head. These include some elements at the climax that may have been literally copy-and-pasted from Watchmen’s graphics department, though to say much more would spoil the sheer lunacy of how the film finishes. Suffice to say, most will absolutely hate it; I almost do, but at the same time almost respect it for being so bonkers. On top of this, that the crew were denied permission to film in many of Rome’s famous locales means there’s an abundance of computer-aided locations. They probably look perfectly real to your average movie goer, but for me they all had that slight indefinable oddness that’s present too often these days — think Quantum of Solace’s Siena chase and bell-tower-to-art-gallery tumble for an example of what I mean.

Angels & Demons makes for an occasionally entertaining run around, though there’s less meat on its bones than The Da Vinci Code, and the comparative lack of believability makes for less fun than its predecessor’s “well, maybe…” plot. Those who disliked the first film may prefer this for being less talky, more pacey, and, perhaps, being aware of its own silliness. Those who actually liked the first film may disagree.

3 out of 5

My review of the extended version of Angels & Demons can now be read here.

Star Trek (2009)

Posted on by
4
2009 #24
J.J. Abrams | 127 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13

It’s Star Trek, Jim, but not as we know it.

Sorry, but as someone who isn’t actually much of a Trek fan I couldn’t resist that. I’ll try not to include any more. In which case, it’s set phasers to thrill (sorry) as the crew of the Starship Enterprise boldly go (sorry) back to the big screen, hoping to relaunch the ailing franchise to live longer and prosper (sorry). The crew look younger than ever and there’s a heavier dose of action to boot — why, it sounds like it might almost be fun! In which case, beam me up Scotty! (Done now.)

“Fun” is certainly the buzz-word for this incarnation of Trek: it’s all action, special effects and spectacle, without a single scene of uniformed elderly people sat debating ethics. Though some ethical issues circle the plot, they provide character motivation (or excuse) rather than any kind of debate. While the average blockbuster crowd won’t mind this — and nor will critics, apparently — the universal praise this reboot has received may become somewhat baffling. Clearly claims that it’s “great science fiction” are misattributed — it’s great action-adventure in a sci-fi setting. Perhaps an easy confusion to make, but an irritating one nonetheless.

But I digress. The emphasis is very much on spectacle throughout, with wide shots of future cities, starships, alien planets and battles, all shining and designed to be as awe-inspiring as possible. No element of the film remains untouched by this desire: the Good Guys and Bad Guys are clearly delineated — no shades of grey in this gleaming white Universe; the jokes are all entirely upfront, almost to the point of slapstick; everyone’s very young and pretty; and the majority of female characters (there aren’t many) are gratuitously in their underwear at some point too. It all makes for a huge contrast to the dark-as-we-can blockbusters that have been doing the rounds for the last few years (and will be as much as ever this summer) — it makes Iron Man look serious. This is completely appropriate for Trek as originally conceived: the original series was Kennedy-era optimism, all about equality, exploration and peace; perhaps then this is the first film of Obama-era optimism — lots of young people defeating overwhelming terrorist odds.

With all its bright, optimistic youthfulness, it has the feel of a PG-rated family-friendly blockbuster, which might lead one to wonder about the meaningfulness of the “12” certificate now that it has an “A” attached. The answer undoubtedly lies in the action sequences (not the underwear — there’s nothing worse than Princess Leia’s bikini, and that’s rated U. Not that it would be today.) It’s unfortunate that the opening U.S.S. Kelvin sequence is the film’s best, though the rest don’t suffer by comparison. While nothing else is as individually memorable — though parachuting onto the drill tries very hard to be — it’s all of a good enough quality and, crucially, moves by fast enough that you likely won’t notice.

There’s a plot too, believe it or not. It’s actually quite complex, but is pushed along in big chunks of exposition and those breezy action scenes, meaning most won’t notice the strain writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are under to make it all work. Sadly they didn’t quite pull it off: there are some glaring plot holes, the worst being a huge blob of coincidence fuelled by convenience halfway through that barely makes any sense. This icy planet — or The Planet of Convenience, as I feel it should be called — features the giant red monster seen so prominently in the trailer. It will come as no surprise that it’s designed by the bloke who came up with Cloverfield’s beasty, not only because it looks almost as foul but because Abrams resolutely keeps the same crew around him at every level. But it’s an irritant to those looking for a cohesive story, starring in an unnecessary action sequence that stinks of both “oh, and a big nasty monster would be cool” and “no one will buy this coincidence, let’s hide it in an action sequence with a distractingly ugly monster!”

The plot does impress in one regard however: it is incredibly entrenched in the intricacies of Star Trek continuity and history, yet all this manages to slip by amiably and accessibly. It’s so at pains to explain why this new-look Trek is completely different from canon yet absolutely a part of it that it runs round the houses tying things together and explaining away inconsistencies that only knowledgeable Trekkies will care about. This is impressive because, in spite of it, it feels like a Fresh New Trek. Perhaps this is why the fans have embraced a film that looks like a multiplex-pleasing reboot: they feel catered for with Spock Prime (as the credits would have it), the complexities of time travel and the references back to the other Trek universe, offering up a whole load of new things to integrate into already-bursting continuity manuals, meaning the lighter action-adventure stuff is permissible too.

Technically speaking, the film is a mixed bag. The design work, for example, is great. While the Romulan ship is your typical Big Bad Semi-Organic Alien Vessel, seen a lot in every space opera TV series of the ’90s, the Enterprise is clean and bright and rather different. After years of Alien-inspired grime throughout sci-fi — even attempted in Star Trek with the submarine-like vessel at the heart of prequel series Enterprise — the new-look USS Enterprise is all bright white and vibrant colours. It’s custom made for plastic toy playsets in fact; or, to be slightly nicer, “these are the voyages of the Apple iEnterprise.”

On the other hand, the cinematography is frequently irritating. While many of the CG shots present a graceful view of the space spectacle, most of the time they need to put the damn camera down. It doesn’t need to be jiggling about all over the place during dialogue scenes — Kirk and Pike in the bar post-fight is an especially irritating example — and it would be nice to see what’s going on in the action scenes. Of course, they manage to provide a nice clear shot when the ladies are in their undies. Cynical? Never. DoP Daniel Mindel has confessed that he tried to get in as many lens flares as possible, and you can tell — it comes across like it was shot by someone who’s only ever worked on digital, then upon switching to film accidentally created a lens flare, thought it was pretty, and decided the film would be better if there was one at literally every opportunity. It wouldn’t.

The cast and handling of multiple characters are both less problematic. The way the young crew is brought together is more than a tad contrived, but with seven major characters to compile in a Very Young Crew origin story it’s not an easy task. Certainly, this way is much more exciting than if they were simply assigned the job at an appropriate age and bonded on their first mission — which would undoubtedly have been the plot of Old Trek’s origin movie. The focus is clearly on Kirk and Spock; mainly the former, but his character arc is little more than a standard genius-rebel-comes-good one, whereas Spock’s battle between two cultures and within himself allows Zachary Quinto a lot more to do. Chris Pine makes a good Dashing Hero, balancing the heroic action and broad humour with aplomb, but it’s Quinto whose acting chops come the closest to getting a test. Wisely, neither chooses to copy their original counterpart, which allows them to breathe as characters rather than impersonations.

Most of the leads follow the same strategy to good effect; while Anton Yelchin (as Chekov) and Karl Urban (as Dr ‘Bones’ McCoy) come closer to doing impressions than anyone else, they still make good their own versions. Winona Ryder is a piece of odd casting though, aging up for a tiny role as Spock’s mother. At least Jennifer Morrison’s equally tiny mothering role can be put down to the fact that, while she’s very recognisable to any House fans, she’s playing her own age and isn’t a movie star. Ryder is. Or, perhaps, was.

Unsurprisingly, Simon Pegg’s incarnation of Scotty is an awful a lot of fun. There’s nothing like enough of him, and a sequel will only benefit from an increased Scotty presence from the very start. Though Pegg gets the lion’s share of the best comedic bits — possibly due to his experience and talent in the field — he only turns up to add lightness at the point everyone else begins to get Very Serious About The Plot. Before that there are plenty of jokes flying around, including several that actually require memory — a rare thing in a film focused on spectacle — paying off earlier gags you didn’t expect would receive a payoff. The level to which the film is internally referential and interconnected is again to Orci and Kurtzman’s credit. As noted, the humour brings a nice lightness to proceedings, something missing from the darker-than-dark treatment most franchises offer these days.

The final scene is a bit of a cheesy moment, one of those “aww look the whole gang’s together and they’re all friends” bits — for an American film that relies on optimism, it’s something that they managed to have only one. But it does hold the promise of more adventures to come, and based on the critical and box office success of this outing we’re sure to get them. The need to introduce so many characters here both drives the plot forward and restrains it — the former provides a lot of material, including all the stuff tying it to main Trek continuity, while the latter means any independent narrative is primarily a facilitator for the rest. Hopefully a sequel will suggest the latter is true and it’s not a reliance on the former that has provided this entry’s quality. Or, to put it plainly, “next time they better come up with a good plot”.

For an independent viewer, the over-zealous critical reception is Star Trek’s biggest problem: while it is certainly satisfying in some areas it’s also lacking in others, but it seems most of the world’s critics are closet Trekkies, able to seize upon an above-average film and hail it as the Second Coming. It will come as no surprise when I say it isn’t. I’ve never really got on with Star Trek and its solar system of spin-offs — which, I admit, may be Doctor Who-fan bloody-mindedness — but this I enjoyed, a little in spite of myself and the disproportionate adulation it’s received elsewhere. Rebooting a franchise in a way that appeases fans and pulls in new viewers is no easy task, but it seems safe to say that Abrams has done almost as good a job as Russell T Davies, even if only one of them remembered to hide some brains among the entertainment.

This new incarnation of Trek is bright, light and fun in the face of insurmountable odds — both from the threat in the film and from public perception. Despite the claims, it is not the Second Coming, but it is very good at what it does. In all these respects, it really is just like Obama-era optimism. Does it mean Abrams can relaunch the ailing Trek franchise? Why, yes he CAAAAAAAAAAAAN.

(Really done now.)

4 out of 5

Star Trek placed 7th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2009, which can be read in full here.

Airplane! (1980)

Posted on by
Reply
2009 #21
Jim Abrahams, David Zucker & Jerry Zucker | 84 mins | DVD | PG / PG

Airplane! is not… well, many things. But what it is is a comedy, and, as I’ve said before, if a comedy makes me laugh that’s good enough — it’s its job and, unless there’s more advertised, there’s no good reason to expect or desire more. So is it funny? Yes. But…

The main problem with watching Airplane! for the first time now is that it occasionally suffers from its own popularity. Many jokes are too well known to seem original in context, and while some retain their humour others look tired. The ungenerous would mark it down for this, but that seems unfair considering it’s only the film’s fault in the sense that it was so good everyone’s copied it. However, age is a problem in other ways: cultural references always date, and some jokes here depend on those; some depend on being American too, meaning they passed by with an uncomfortable awareness that I was watching a joke but had no idea why it should make me laugh.

Airplane! combats these almost-faults in two ways: one, it is irrepressibly silly, which in this case is a very good thing; and two, it has an incredibly high joke rate. Combined, these mean it can coast over some of the problems. Even when it slows for a minute or two while running through a gag you don’t get, there’s an overriding silliness that can raise a chuckle and an awareness that there’ll be another along promptly enough.

There’s a good mix of gags too. As well as visual and out-there humour there’s a pleasing use of moderately intelligent wordplay — you’d be hard pushed to find that in a modern populist comedy film. Considering the BBFC’s PG rating there’s also a surprising number of gags that are adults (or, really, teenagers+) only. Even more surprising is that a film with jokes about blow jobs, suicide and cocaine, and which briefly features a pair of bare breasts, only received a PG from the MPAA.

This model of comedy — the silly spoof, as it were — is still in use today in the depressingly endless series of …Movie movies (like this weak example). But where they’re just crude, Airplane! is witty; where they’re just random, Airplane! is irreverent; and where they’re just derivative, Airplane! was original. It may have aged a little, but it’s still funny, and that’s good enough.

4 out of 5

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

Posted on by
Reply
2009 #23
Gavin Hood | 107 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13

X-Men is a Great Big Action Movie Franchise — you know, the kind that sprawl on through increasingly lengthy films with the constant risk of diminishing quality. Well, at a relatively brisk 107 minutes, this fourth entry in the X-series is actually the second longest. Shocking I know. But while it counterintuitively conforms to the first rule, it fortunately doesn’t to the second, despite what others may say.

Wolverine, to put it simply — much as the film would — entertains. In this respect it may lack the depth of X-Men or X2, both of which played with subtexts of social exclusion and derision evoking especially the historical treatment of Jews and homosexuals; but, taken as a straightforward action-adventure movie about people with extraordinary abilities fighting each other, it more than satisfies. To this end the action sequences are mostly very good. Only one suffers notably from dark cinematography and choppy editing, both common faults these days, while others manage to exhibit the odd bout of originality — the climax atop a nuclear power station is brilliant, making good use of the characters’ superpowers while also delivering on the ol’ punching-and-kicking front. Some have criticised the action for being physically ludicrous, but perhaps they should be reminded that they’re watching a film about people with superpowers. With that in mind, Wolverine never goes beyond what’s plausible for the world that’s been created across all four films.

In fact, lack of subtext aside, this isn’t as distant from the other X-Men films as the single-character focus and prequel status may suggest. It’s mutant-packed, with numerous cameos from characters familiar to comics fans; it begins with the activities of a superhero team, ends with the rescue of a bunch of mutant kids, and the main plot revolves around some humans doing Bad Things to mutants — just like the first three. The most obvious difference is that Wolverine is now very much the central character, but even that isn’t a great change: he was in the first two, however much they tried to convince us otherwise, only neutered in the third because they knew this prequel was on the way. (For me, the abandonment of Wolverine’s backstory was The Last Stand’s biggest fault, the primary thing that made it feel truly separate from the first two films where it was the central — and unresolved — subplot.)

Elsewhere, the vaguely Watchmen-like opening titles are quite neat, conveying backstory and building up the Wolverine/Sabretooth relationship in an attractive fashion, while also slightly distancing this film from the rest of the series by being in a very different style. While the dialogue is rarely more than efficient, there is the odd good one-liner, my particular favourite being when a grossly overweight character mishears Wolverine’s trademark “bub” as “Blob”, a neat use of one familiar element to create another. Even with these moments, almost all the actors are above the script, especially Ryan Reynolds considering how briefly he appears. All do good work nonetheless, the standouts including Dominic Monaghan, whose character is so different from the violence-centric rest that you wish there was more of him, and Liev Schreiber, who is absolutely fine at what he has to do but would benefit from a few more dramatic scenes to get stuck into. Some of his scenes with Wolverine feel very much like a pair of good actors attempting to transcend the material they’re working from.

Around these weaker parts, Hugh Jackman unquestionably carries the film, and is occasionally granted more to do than just fight people. He even gets to attempt something we’ve not seen from Wolverine before: happiness. Even knowing where it’s all going to end — and there is sometimes a sense that we’re just being told a story we’ve either heard before or worked out for ourselves — there are bits like this that help flesh it out, that show us elements of Logan we might not have bothered to consider otherwise. There’s still the odd instance of box-ticking though, as the few pieces we know from the trilogy are strung together by this film’s plot. They’re not too awkwardly slotted in, but there is an awareness that someone was joining up dots.

While this can be ignored, the same can’t always be said for Wolverine’s noticeably silly hairstyle — one particularly bouffanty moment during the climax even provoked laughter from the audience I saw it with. Intriguingly, Jackman is the second of three Aussies with bloody silly hair this summer, following Russell Crowe’s L’Oréal locks in State of Play and preceding Eric Bana’s Picard pate in Star Trek. I’m sure there must be some deeper meaning to these bad barnets…

Unfortunately, a dodgy ’do isn’t the worst of Wolverine’s problems. There’s some very poor CGI, as if the effects guys thought claws were easy so didn’t worry about them too much. Clearly, this isn’t so. The much-criticised de-aging of another recognisable character is also weak, but, for my money, no weaker than what we saw in The Last Stand. Gambit is miscast and underused, and I’m told Deadpool is the latter also. Not being familiar with the character I had no real problem with his treatment here, but perhaps this is why fanboys dislike the film and some others won’t mind it: if you know what these two characters can be or are meant to be, their sidelining might feel like a betrayal; but if you don’t know them, there’s little wrong with them.

The biggest sin for others is that, at times, Wolverine merrily rolls out clichés. One might argue that it’s set in the ’70s and conforming to some kind of ’70s movie schtick, but that would be a pretty thin argument considering it’s not in evidence anywhere else. Personally, I was amused how some of these lines or moments are sped past, as if everyone involved knew they were shooting a bad cliché but felt they had to leave it in.

This year is surprisingly light on superhero movies, with only Watchmen and now Wolverine to satiate that particular fanbase. Of course, last year was exceptionally packed with them, and as the build to Marvel’s massive Avengers team-up kicks off next summer we’ve got a heavy few years ahead. A bit of a break is nice then, and while Watchmen dealt with the more intellectual front of superheroes (or, if you disliked it, tried to), Wolverine caters to the other side with its unashamed action-adventure entertainment. In fact, by being Actually Quite Good when almost everyone is laying into it, Wolverine manages to become the most underrated film of the year so far.

4 out of 5

Big Nothing (2006)

Posted on by
1
2009 #12
Jean-Baptiste Andrea | 82 mins | TV | 15 / R

Big NothingBig Nothing was co-funded by the Isle of Man and Welsh film boards; it’s therefore unsurprising that it was filmed in those locations; and there’s a bunch of British actors in it… but they’re all playing Yanks and it’s set in Oregon.

And it’s as schizophrenic as this would suggest. Across its running time — and mostly in the opening half-hour — Big Nothing jumps wildly from mundane comedy to confidence scam thriller to black comedy to geeky spoof. Early on there’s a nice bit referencing The Matrix, for example; a brief moment which feels like it belongs in another film — as do many others. This flitting around makes for a showy opening, Andrea’s direction screaming “look what I can do!” in a way few films have since Guy Ritchie showed off everything he could do in Lock, Stock. It might help Andrea’s showreel, but the downside for viewers is it makes for taxing viewing and a sense that the film lacks its own identity. In short, it’s trying far too hard.

It does settle down however, improving immensely once it gets on with telling its (still loopy) story and stops trying to impress with flashy tricks. It becomes a lot funnier and a lot more enjoyable, slowly fulfilling any hopes the viewer may’ve had.

But it can’t keep it up, despite the brief running time. A long time before the credits roll it degenerates into a grab-bag of random incidents and twists strung together until the made-up-as-it-goes-along script hits something approaching a produceable page count. On the one hand this randomness at least makes it feel different, but on the other it pushes it too far — the array of twists don’t feel like natural occurrences, just plot points that are completely unforeseeable due to being equally nonsensical.

For a good stretch in the middle Big Nothing does more or less what you want it to, leaving the showy opening and desperate series of endings as unfortunate asides to a watchable film struggling to reach feature length.

3 out of 5

Cut (2009)

Posted on by
Reply
2009 #20a
Joe Wright | 2 mins | streaming

CutIs Cut an advert or is it a film?

On one hand, websites featuring it always refer to it as a “short film”; it stars film star Keira Knightley; is directed by BAFTA-winner Joe Wright; tells a story in a film (as opposed to advert) style; and is a whole two minutes long.

On the other, it’s paid for by Women’s Aid to front a campaign to raise awareness of domestic violence; it ends with a message to this effect, also featuring no title card or credits; it’s not listed on IMDb; it’s been shown for free among adverts in cinemas and online; it would’ve appeared on TV too if Clearcast hadn’t banned it for being “too violent”; and it’s only two minutes long.

It’s an advert, isn’t it? But it shouldn’t’ve been blocked from TV, which has incensed me enough to pretend it’s a film for the purposes of my little corner of the Internet.

Or half pretend, because purely as a film it isn’t great. It’s well shot by Wright, but some of the dialogue is too on-the-nose to convince and it’s actually slightly padded near the start — so slightly that in anything longer it wouldn’t be noticeable, but when something’s only 125 seconds, every one counts. On the other hand, it tells its story economically, using single shots to establish a lot of detail about characters, their lifestyles and their relationships, aided by Knightley playing a version of herself. In this the length and depth of story chosen are well-balanced.

When the violence comes, it’s moderately brutal. And here’s the rub — it’s arguably not brutal enough to cover the horrid reality of what some people have to suffer. It’s been made suitable to be shown on TV in a slot where people will see it — which, for its aims as an awareness advert, is completely appropriate. In the wake of Clearcast’s stupid ban I was expecting something more severe, which counterintuitively means the violence is more shocking for what it isn’t. Maybe whoever makes the decisions at Clearcast should watch Hostel: Part II before any appeal — or, to be honest, the 12A-rated Dark Knight might suffice.

With a brief running time and an important message to put across, Cut is a 5-out-of-5 advert, if only for the amount of talk and awareness it’s achieved. But I said I was trying to judge it as a film, so I’ll be a little tighter:

4 out of 5

Cut is available to stream for free on YouTube. More information about the campaign’s impact can be found on Wikipedia.

Anne Frank Remembered (1995)

Posted on by
Reply
2009 #4
Jon Blair | 117 mins | TV | E / PG

Anne Frank RememberedAnne Frank’s is arguably the best-known individual story of the Holocaust, perhaps because the diary of a 13-year-old girl in hiding from the Nazis — and, sadly, eventually captured by them — makes a perfect gateway for young people into learning about those atrocities.

In this Oscar-winning documentary, Jon Blair exposes the ‘untold story’ of Anne Frank. He adds to her words with the perspective of her friends, other people who knew her, and relatives of her companions in the annex. In covering these views the film presents alternate interpretations of many people Anne wrote about — for example, Fritz Pfeffer (renamed Albert Dussel in the published diary) is very disliked by Anne, but here is painted in a very different light by his son. The film also reflects on Anne herself, and what it uncovers is not always positive. Such an honest approach could be contentious, but its attempt to uncover the truth — rather than paint a false saintly picture — is admirable.

The film’s second half describes what happened after the diary ends, an often ignored part of the tale — even the BBC’s recent, excellent adaptation ended with the residents of the annex being escorted out, and I think many believe this is where the story ends. In reality there were seven months between the discovery of the annex and Anne’s death, and while only Otto Frank survived the concentration camps, many of the others came heartbreakingly close: Peter van Pels died just three days before his camp was liberated, while Pfeffer was marched away by the deserting SS as the Soviets neared, dying with so many others on that path. Here the film touches on much of what life was like in the camps, adding to its detail of how life was for those in hiding. There are undoubtedly other texts that do this more thoroughly, but by focusing on one family and using just a handful of interviewees, the events are made to feel incredibly personal in a way that some documentaries’ more factual approach fails to.

What happened to the diary after the war is also briefly covered: how the book came to light, the impact it had when published, allegations it was a hoax (due to differences between translations, and fictional events created for the 1955 play and subsequent film adaptation), as well as the positive effect it’s had beyond that, including comments from the likes of Nelson Mandela.

With its honest and extended investigation of the events covered in Anne Frank’s diary, plus its consideration of broader facts of the Holocaust, Anne Frank Remembered adds significantly to the original text. In doing so it becomes an essential companion piece to one of the most famous and important documents of the Second World War.

5 out of 5

Runaway Train (1985)

Posted on by
Reply
2009 #11
Andrei Konchalovsky | 106 mins | TV | 15 / R

This review contains major spoilers.

Runaway TrainRunaway Train bagged itself three Oscar nominations and one for the Palme d’Or back in 1986, which rather begs the question, how?

On the awards-worthy side, it’s based on an Akira Kurosawa script and features grittier-than-average direction and performances. On the other, the majority of its story and supporting characters feel closer to other ’80s actioners like Lethal Weapon or Die Hard. The focus on a high concept (the title says it all), emphasis on exciting action sequences, the way the plot is structured, the faintly pantomime villains, comical supporting characters, and occasional slips into fantasy (one character was welded into his cell, the state the prison has degraded to, the whole concept of the runaway train and its computer control centre) — none of these elements suggest your typical Oscar nominee, but instead a half-forgotten minor action flick.

The lead characters and their performances, by Jon Voight and Eric Roberts, are above average for the genre — this is where two of the Oscar nods come from — but they’re not notably superior to other outstanding examples (see Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman in Die Hard). Praising the acting can only cover the two leads, at best, because the villains and supporting roles are as one-dimensional and clichéd as you’d expect from the genre. The other Oscar nomination was for editing, one that’s more obviously deserved. Visually, the sequences of the train smashing through the countryside are fairly impressive. Perhaps the camerawork deserved a nod in this respect too, as it lends the film a gritty real-world feel that may be explain some’s distraction from the otherwise familiar values. It can’t mask them all though — for example, the occasionally brutal violence is still denied any real-world punch thanks to the fantastical sheen created by some plot points.

The notable exception to most of this is the ending, where Voight’s anti-hero stands atop a train engine we — and he — know to be doomed, his prison warden nemesis handcuffed inside, and rides it out of sight into the fog. It’s a classy finale that flirts with the downbeat ending, though doesn’t quite succumb to it because we also know the young sidekick and girl have survived. Nonetheless, there’s pleasingly no postscript, simply fading to black after the engine disappears into the mist. The titular train, one might theorise, is like some mythic beast — it arrives through snow-mist, leaves devastation in its wake, and then disappears back into it. But that might be getting a bit too pretentious…

In focusing on these lofty pretensions (which may have been forced on it by nominations and some reviews), one can become distracted from the fact that, taken as a straight-up high-concept action-adventure, Runaway Train has an awful lot going for it. And if you want to get pretentious about it, well, it might just support that too.

As a final aside: one of the film’s most memorable moments, in retrospect, is down to an accident of fate. Near the end a character looks at a space shuttle on TV and muses, “with all this high technology, why couldn’t we stop it?” Just 11 days after Runaway Train’s US release, Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated 73 seconds after launch, killing its seven crew members. For anyone aware of this correlation, it’s an incredibly poignant moment.

4 out of 5

Though the Radio Times review I’ve linked to says Runaway Train is an 18, it was reclassified in 2008. [It has since been updated.]