G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

Posted on December 11, 2013 by badblokebob

If Team America: World Police had been made for children, it would be a lot like this.

If The Asylum made blockbusters instead of mockbusters, they would be a lot like this.

If Michael Bay were a less skilled director, his movies would be a lot like this.

It’s tough to know where to begin slagging it off — there are too many options. How about the groundwork for any film: the screenplay. Never mind the storyline (a MacGuffin hunt designed to facilitate action sequences), but take a look at the dialogue — it’s all of the “oh hello, brother” / “you are finally home, my wife” / “I’ve not seen you for four years” level. After a while, you just have to accept it’s pushing so-bad-it’s-good; by the final act, I was laughing out loud at nearly every line.

The characters all have daft names/codenames that people insist on using to make sure we know which toy they’re based on. Indeed, the actors sometimes stand as if they’re action figures — a callback to their roots, an attempt at subconscious manipulation to buy toys, or just a plastic cast? And the accents… Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is a Londoner born and raised, so why does he sound like Don Cheadle in Ocean’s Eleven?! Who had the bright idea of forcing Christopher Eccleston to do a Scottish accent?! Why is Joseph Gordon-Levitt overacting so ferociously?!

There’s needless, distracting, awkwardly-inserted flashback sequences designed to illuminate and explore the backstory of these characters — who are in an action movie and are based on toys. If ever we don’t need to know (or care) about a character’s history, it’s here. And talking of flashbacks, the CGI looks more like it’s from 1999 than 2009.

Almost as unintentionally hilarious is the Radio Times review. It praises all sorts of things that are actually awful — several of the things I’ve covered so far, in fact: “the dialogue is hilariously self-aware” (it’s hilariously unaware), “smart flashbacks” (pointless flashbacks), “high-quality visuals” (cheap visuals), etc.

Everything is so ludicrously overblown, from the predictable plot to the dodgy dialogue to the action sequences that aren’t just OTT, they’re over OTT. It’s another example of a kids’ Saturday morning TV show concept writ large into a movie that takes itself too seriously and, with a PG-13 certificate, aims at teenagers and underdeveloped adults. I’m not the strongest advocate of growing out of childish things (superheroes, Doctor Who, yay!), but some stuff remains at “for the young only”. This is one of them.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2013, which can be read in full here.

Fast & Furious (2009)

Posted on December 9, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #86
Justin Lin | 102 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Some say this is the worst of the series, and I think I agree. 2 Fast 2 Furious has a stupid name and Tokyo Drift is almost a direct-to-DVD cheapo, but they embrace their trashy roots and are kinda fun.

#4 takes itself too seriously as a revenge/drug-smuggling thriller. There’s only the occasional uninspiring driving sequence, many featuring CGI that looks straight out of a computer game — and not even a computer game now, but a computer game back when the film was made.

The tagline — “New model. Original parts.” — was very neat, but is also the best thing here.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

Survival of the Dead (2009)

Posted on November 2, 2013 by badblokebob

Once, zombie auteur George A. Romero commented that he’d hoped to make one zombie film a decade — witness Night of the Living Dead in 1968, Dawn of the Dead in 1978, and Day of the Dead in 1985. So why, then, did he churn out three new zombie flicks in four years, between Land of the Dead in 2005 and Survival in 2009? On the US Blu-ray, he explains.

Money.

Yep. As Romero tells the story, after Land of the Dead he had an idea for a film about ‘citizen journalism’. He wanted to make it quickly, before someone else had the same idea (sadly, several such films were already well into development, but hey, he didn’t know that), so how better to make a film quickly and cheaply than by turning to what he knew — zombies. The result, Diary of the Dead, was made so cheaply that, despite a limited release, it turned a healthy profit. Cue pressure on Romero to turn out another to capitalise on this success. So he did. And that probably explains why this entry — the sixth in his thematically-connected series of zombie films — was so poorly received and seems to be almost universally regarded as the weakest instalment.

As is so often the case, I disagree. But we’ll come to that.

A defining feature of Romero’s zombie series is that there are, as he argues, no sequels. The zombie-infested world of the films develops, but no characters return — each film is standalone; you could argue each concerns a different zombie apocalypse, if you really wanted. Survival bucks that trend by being the first direct sequel. If you’ve seen Diary, you’ll remember the (brief) scene where the military turn up and rob our heroes. Bastards. Well, that little gang of military types are back — and now they’re the heroes. Survival even takes the time to flashback to Diary, noting the release of the film-within-a-film led to the military gang’s leader, Sarge (Alan van Sprang), being recognised. It’s not a plot/character thread Romero chooses to develop further — there’s no about-turn in his values, or a desire to hide from said recognition — which is a shame, actually, because the plot supports such a move.

The story proper begins on the island of Plum, somewhere off the coast of America, which has been populated for centuries by two opposed Irish clans, the O’Flynns and the Muldoons. In the days following the outbreak, the O’Flynns set about killing the undead; the Muldoons, however, think they should be kept locked up, in case a cure is developed. This leads to the dominant Muldoons, led by Seamus (Richard Fitzpatrick) kicking some of the O’Flynns off the island, including patriarch Patrick (Kenneth Welsh). That’s how, months later, Patrick meets up with our military gang and lures them back to Plum, where things have changed…

The obvious problem here is one of heroes — who do we support? There’s the military guys, who we dislike from Diary; there’s Patrick O’Flynn, who we first meet when his posse murders a woman so they can get to her zombified children and dispatch them too; and there’s the Muldoons, who don’t factor in again for a while, but when they do… well, they’re not a nice bunch, really. And yet Romero doesn’t construct a whole film from unlikeable characters — well, some viewers would (and have) assert he does, but I tend to think he redeems the military somewhat. We meet up with them as they come across a gang of men in the woods, who have seemingly been hunting the undead for fun. In the latest twist on the zombie-killing format met with human cruelty, they’ve been beheading them and shoving those heads on sticks — and, as we know, unless the brain is destroyed the zombie ‘lives’. A confrontation leads to the nasty hunters being killed, and Sarge kindly ending the existence of the row of zombie heads. Doesn’t sound cheery, put like that, but the military are Doing The Right Thing.

It’s also here that they meet a character known only as Boy (Devon Bostick), who had been co-opted into the gang of hunters. Turns out he’s handy with a weapon himself, and resourceful and clever. What an intriguing mystery. But don’t get too caught up — Romero never again alludes to where such skills materialised from. In fact, he so doesn’t return to the Boy’s abilities that I wonder if we weren’t even really meant to notice. Which doesn’t make sense. Is he left over to be revisited in a third in this new zombie series? Romero doesn’t seem to be in any rush to produce one… but then, Survival was an almighty flop (it even went straight to DVD here), so I guess we’ll never know.

As discussed, Romero already turned this one out quickly, motivated more by a desirous studio than a flash of inspiration (the fact its production company is called “Blank of the Dead” is telling), and the sacrifice for such speed seems to come in the thematic department: while all of Romero’s previous zombie films have a clear (some would say too clear) socio-political underscore, you could watch Survival and not even imagine one was there. I almost did. Instead, its thesis is a relatively slight offering about the futility of long-standing feuds that no one can remember the start of, and how they ruin everyone’s lives. It’s a valid point, and, in a world where the likes of the Israel-Palestine conflict rumble on, an ever-pertinent one. It feels underdeveloped, though; like Romero didn’t have time to make it work properly, and so just threw some extra elements in there to give the plot some drive. How do the military unit, our de facto heroes, actually relate to anything?

You know, I had a whole thing to go into there, and then the obvious hit me: they represent foreign (usually American) military interference. They wade in and cause a ruckus. Which side are they on? The one they encountered first, not the one that objectively has the best argument — also a definition of US foreign policy, is it not. And I’m sure it’s no coincidence that the islanders are Irish; and not just Irish in the way so many Americans claim to be “Irish” or “Italian” or whatever just because 200 years ago they had some relatives who emigrated, but properly, thickly-accented Irish. Which, yes, is kinda odd on an island off the coast of America, but hey, why not.

Another thing Romero has almost always done is push his treatment of zombies forward. Diary was the black sheep in this regard — by going back to the start, the zombies regressed to shambling flesh-eaters; and, actually, they’re barely a part of that film, only turning up now and then to motivate an action sequence. Here, Romero is almost back on track: the zombies are a more major part of the movie, thanks to the Muldoons keeping so many of them alive, and Romero once again finds a new direction to push their development in. Some, I think, would find it preferable and more worthy of exploration than the ‘intelligent’ zombies of Day and Land. Indeed, even more so than the Boy, it’s a shame Romero hasn’t moved on to a seventh film to explore the potential of his closing-moments revelation here.

For those more concerned with zombie-killin’ action, Romero and his effects team continue to come up with new ways of ridding the world of the undead. There’s the return of flesh-ripping practical effects in an attempt to satiate the hardcore, but there’s still CGI, and inevitably they seem to have focussed on that instead. As I discussed in my Diary review, I have no problem with CG blood splatter or what have you, and it’s as palatable here as it was there. There’s also a welcome return for his brand of humour, which went somewhat AWOL in the last couple of films. Those who criticise the film for being too comedic have, in my view, become too obsessed with modern cinema’s uber-serious tone. Lighten up folks, it’s a horror/sci-fi/fantasy movie.

I’ve written an average of 1,531 words about each of Romero’s previous ‘Dead’ movies, and even then not discussed everything I feel is worth saying about them. I thought Survival would merit a lot less because, despite my above analysis, it does feel more lightweight than its predecessors. In the end, it’s in the same ballpark (1,516 to be precise, and I still haven’t said everything worth saying), because a) I don’t think being lightweight is wholly a bad thing, and b) there’s more to it than meets the eye. There are, unquestionably, better zombie movies written and directed by George A. Romero, but I think here he’s produced one of his most watchable; one that can be as entertaining as the others, is still at times as innovative, and does even support a deeper reading, if you’re prepared to look for it. The film not only shows us that the dead can survive, but that so should Romero’s reputation.

Part of Week of the Living Dead for Halloween 2013.

Diary of the Dead (2007)

Posted on November 1, 2013 by badblokebob

While making a horror movie in the woods, a group of friends hear news of the dead coming back to life. As they try to reach home, their aspiring documentary-maker director keeps his camera rolling, recording their encounters with the living dead…

After his first living dead movie, it took writer-director George A. Romero a full ten years to have a concept for a follow-up. Then it was seven years before he produced another, and then he skipped a decade entirely before he produced a fourth twenty years on. But it was only two years after that before he returned to the subgenre he’d spawned almost 40 years earlier.

The quick turnaround was thanks to Romero being inspired by the rise of ‘citizen journalism’ — that’s people who document events with mobile phone cameras and the like, telling their own alternative version of the news on blogs, YouTube, Twitter, and the rest. It gave him an idea for another of his zombie movies, which he rushed to make before anyone else could do it first. Too late, George: although he managed to get Diary of the Dead into festivals in 2007, its wider cinematic release came after Cloverfield, the high-profile big-budget version of Romero’s concept that’s rather kickstarted a whole found-footage subgenre. And anyway, both of them owe a clear debt to a film released eight years earlier, The Blair Witch Project.

I liked Cloverfield, and Blair Witch. I don’t object to found-footage as a genre when it’s done well. Diary of the Dead is… well, it’s a funny one. It marks Romero’s return to independent feature making, after producing Land of the Dead for a major studio, but he perhaps went a little too independent: with a clear low-budget ethic and a cast of unknown actors, criticism from some quarters that this is little better than a Syfy TV movie are not without basis. And the technological aspect is already beginning to feel dated after just six years (people use MySpace!), so goodness knows how it’ll look after even ten. Thing is, despite all that, Diary still has one ace up its sleeve: it’s written and directed by George A. Romero.

What does that mean, then? Well, it means clear social commentary, as usual. Some people say that’s not as subtle as it used to be — again, as usual. Romero’s targets this time are the news: how the mainstream media lies to us, and how we’ve turned to alternative sources. But he’s also aware of the limitations of those alternatives: the lack of real-world contact, interacting with each other through cameras, phones and computers; processing the world not by going to see it but by watching it in little boxes on a screen.

In taking on this world, Romero has produced a movie that fits right in amongst it. Diary feels like it was made by some just-out-of-film-school kid rather than a 67-year-old moviemaking veteran. Romero is clearly a stylistic chameleon (as I noted on Land of the Dead), but that’s the surface sheen: the digital HD visuals, the syndicated-TV-level ability of the cast, the cut-price CGI… It’s also, sadly, sometimes the writing: the dialogue isn’t all it could be, and the characters are sketchy and archetypal — though, in fairness, that’s not unheard of from a Romero supporting cast. But, as ever, Romero adds his own spin by attempting to engage with social themes; not only those I’ve mentioned, but several more: “do we deserve to survive this?” is the closing note — again, taking on one of Romero’s pet subjects, the violence of humanity, against ourselves and others. Earlier in the film the military turn up, very briefly, but they are the opposite of all they should be. It’s not just that Romero hasn’t changed his views in 30 years or more, it’s that the world hasn’t changed either.

That said, the thematic concerns feel less resonant than in Romero’s previous work. The found-footage has led him to frame this as a film-within-a-film — the first title card reads The Death of Death, followed by one noting it’s “a film by Jason Creed”, the aforementioned aspiring director — complete with montages of news footage and, at times, a voice over narration. This rather rams the point home at times, over-explaining features that previously Romero would have allowed us to spot for ourselves. In some respects you can’t blame him being more obvious in this day and age — it needs to be on the nose to get through to some people — but it’s less satisfying, the blunt information coming across as a statement rather than asking us for our own interpretation, which I feel can lead to a more insightful analysis.

This is coupled with arguably a greater focus on action and gore than ever before. The first three films limit the majority of their violence to a final-act brawl — think Night’s trip to the gas pump/zombie break-in, the bikers in Dawn, the zombie break-in (again) in Day, the zombie, er, break-in in Land — but here we’re given a smattering throughout, with no all-or-nothing finale. That’s not a bad thing, but it makes it feel more pervasive — even more so than Land, which was an action-adventure movie through and through. Is Romero playing to his crowd, here? The ones who have always looked to his films foremost for their zombie-killin’ special effects; the ones who think Zack Snyder’s Dawn remake is superior to most/all of Romero’s films? (Seriously, those people exist.)

Such folks, and even genuine Romero fans, seem to have two major problems with Diary (aside from arguments about the acting, the storyline, or even the entire concept). First, the gore: where Land added CGI to the traditional mix, Diary’s almost exclusively courtesy of computer wizardry. That’s the age we live in: computer effects are so commonplace that they’re now the cheap and easy thing to achieve, rather than men with buckets of red food colouring and entrails from the local butcher. For me, it’s a mixed bag. I don’t think this is the worst CGI I’ve ever seen (unlike some commentators), but I do think it lacks the distinctive Romero feel — there’s none of his trademark eating of intestines, for instance, or the tearing a human in half that’s become a key visual in every film since Dawn. Perhaps that’s because of the realism angle? No one would film that; they’d turn away. Of course, when zombies get shot/beaten/etc, that’s different; that we can watch.

In fact, Romero kind of has his cake and eats it. There’s CG gore aplenty, and new and inventive ways to kill the zombies, but he still criticises that “violence for the sake of it” attitude, particularly in the film’s closing moments. He also takes pot-shots at fast-moving zombies and the treatment of women in horror films, but those are deserved, especially as they generate a laugh here. Nonetheless, said inventiveness is somewhat entertaining. There’s a particular good bit with an Amish man (the film’s best character) and a scythe, and another with a kid and a bow & arrow. I guess gorehounds will never be satiated by CGI, instead always moaning it looks cheap, but here at least it’s fine — doubly so for a film of such low budget.

The other problem bemoaned by fans is that this is a reboot, of sorts. Romero’s previous zombie films feature no recurring characters and don’t sit properly within the same timeline, but they nonetheless feature an evolution of the zombie epidemic: it spreads from a one-night issue in Night to a dragging problem in Dawn, to an all-consuming one by Day, in which we see the zombies gaining in intelligence, to the point where they consciously form an invading force in Land. But Diary scraps all that, going back to the start of the epidemic. It doesn’t remake Night — in fact, it handles a few things notably differently (in Night the radio and TV report factual and helpful information; in Diary, they obscure the fact the outbreak is even happening) — but it does disregard the development Romero had taken the undead through.

This may, then, be the time to mention that Romero doesn’t consider his films to be sequels, because each one starts with a new set of characters and tells a self-contained story. He has a point: consider any of the first four films in isolation and you’ll realise you don’t need to have seen the preceding movie(s) to follow them, they just don’t take the traditional move of starting from the birth of the zombie problem. This is perhaps most evident in Land: the sci-fi-esque dystopian world, born of ours but notably different, is the setting for dozens of movies; we’re used to jumping into that without three films’ worth of exposition on how we got from here to there. So if you choose to consider each film as a standalone, self-contained entity, Diary going back to the start doesn’t seem quite so odd. It’s even necessary for the film’s theme: the premise requires it to be set in a present-day we recognise that’s then transformed by the zombie epidemic, rather than a sci-fi future set post-Land.

But, nonetheless, the epidemic did develop and evolve across Romero’s previous films, and that’s been lost here. Maybe there’s nowhere further to go with it? I’m not convinced of that. Perhaps Romero will have another idea and get to tell that story someday in the future, leaving Diary (and Survival) as an aside to his once-a-decade continuing series.

I disagree with those who think Diary is without interest or merit — clearly, as I’ve gone on this long about it. Romero brings a class to the concept that a lesser director wouldn’t, but it’s also a concept a lesser director could have realised much of in a similar fashion. It’s unquestionably the weakest of Romero’s first five ‘Dead’ films, then, but that still leaves it notably better than many, many other contributions to the genre.

Part of Week of the Living Dead for Halloween 2013.

Land of the Dead: Director’s Cut (2005)

Posted on October 31, 2013 by badblokebob

While the first three ‘Dead’ films (or “the original trilogy”, to put it in Star Wars-y terms) now all look and feel like ‘classic movies’ (read: “old movies”), the next three bring things bang up to date: Land of the Dead was only released eight years ago.

Set in a world where the zombie epidemic has been running for years, perhaps decades — but with a title card that lets us know this is “Today” — Land of the Dead focuses on a city of haves and have-nots: a massive tower block, Fiddler’s Green, houses those both rich enough to buy a place there and deemed suitable for entry by its board of directors; in the wreckage of a city around them, regular folk live in slums. Raiding parties go out to surrounding small towns to raid what’s left of canned goods and so forth, where the zombies live a dumb show of their former lives — until one of them realises that they could be something more…

A quick glance at the internet suggests Land is significantly less well regarded than Romero’s original trilogy, which I think is distinctly unfair. The reasons for this seem to be twofold: viewers coming to it as a modern zombie movie, apparently unaware of Romero’s legacy — or so I presume, from their complaints about sentient/sympathetic zombies; and fans of old who see it as too slick and modern, a sell-out to mainstream action/horror films. I don’t really agree with either.

Firstly, the zombies. They’re a development of the ideas we saw emerging through Bub in Day of the Dead. The ‘head zombie’ here is a hulking ex-mechanic-type, who witnesses a raid on his town where the humans needlessly ‘kill’ some of his fellow undead on their way out of town. He is outraged. This is a zombie not only sporting intelligence, but also emotion; a desire to protect, as he attempts to save some of his comrades’ ‘lives’; and then a desire for revenge, when he sees the glittering lights of the city in the distance. Lead he does, corralling the other zombies into a slow march towards their target.

Romero has said that he read Richard Matheson’s novel I Am Legend, the inspiration for Night of the Living Dead, as an analogy for revolution. Matheson’s vampire/zombie creatures are the successful revolutionaries, the hero the last remnant of someone resisting the change. Romero didn’t see him as the hero, but the old guard who ought to give in. I don’t know how fully Night adopts that theme (the revolution seems to have been crushed — though, in a ’60s America where protest seemed to have little impact, I can well believe that was Romero’s point), but it’s certainly present in Land: the oppressed zombie silent-majority rising up against their self-decreed masters.

Each of Romero’s films has had a significant, sympathetic black male hero. That wasn’t a deliberate choice in Night, but it seems to be a theme continued throughout the series: Night’s Ben is the intelligent, resourceful, thoughtful leader; Dawn’s Peter is the most level-headed and well-prepared of that film’s men; Day’s John wisely stays out of the soldier-vs-scientist bickering, and it’s ultimately his plan of escape to a deserted island that they follow. Land has an heroic black character too — but he’s the leader of the zombies. As if you were in any doubt that we were meant to be on their side, even if just a little bit.

In the world of the humans, meanwhile, we also have an oppressed majority: the slum dwellers. Attempts at revolution there are soundly ignored, with the rich quietly taking the opposition out as ‘trash’ whenever able (which, I guess, is whenever they want). The people are controlled by drink, drugs, gambling, prostitution, and any other cheap entertainment you can imagine, all secretly managed from on-high to keep the general populace docile. And those entertainments are getting increasingly extreme, too: the zombie-on-zombie cage fights previously used cat or dog meat as motivation, but now they throw in Asia Argento. Again, Romero is holding a mirror up to present-day America, where the illusion of a ‘free society’ with easy social mobility is supported by the mega-rich in order to keep the poor down. It takes the zombie invasion for anything to change, which may be a case of Romero “following the story” rather than reflecting a political reality — who’s going to invade the US?

This is where I diverge from the aforementioned “old fans”, because Land is clearly bursting with Romero’s usual socio-political analogies and commentary. There’s the rich/poor divide (which, in real life, is actually shockingly extreme in the US) and the abundance of entertainment, as previously discussed; there’s certainly some post-9/11 thoughts (quoth Dennis Hopper, “we do not negotiate with terrorists”), and perhaps post-Katrina too; perhaps the zombies represent foreign nationals, either breaking in (for a nation founded on immigration, the US are certainly very cautious about it, especially when it comes to Mexicans) or kicking off a revolution (a ‘prediction’ of the Arab Spring?); and there are freedom fighters within too, who are incarcerated and apparently tortured without trial (Guantanamo); or, if you want to see Romero as a genuine prophet, they could be foreshadowing Occupy Wall Street and its ilk. But hey, it’s also got some action scenes, right? Those commenters that do acknowledge these facets claim Romero’s just not as subtle as he used to be, which is also poppycock: Dawn’s criticism of consumerism is as blatant as anything listed here — perhaps even more so, because you can just watch Land as a near-future science-fiction humans-vs-humans-vs-zombies action flick, whereas I think Dawn’s ‘subtext’ is unmissable.

Indeed, while lots of reviews and articles merrily analyse these films’ commentary on their respective eras’ socio-political concerns, what’s less often (or “never”, as far as I’ve seen) noticed is how they reflect the filmmaking styles of their times as well. Night is a stark black-and-white chiller, contemporaneous with the likes of Psycho; Dawn is an auteur-driven socially-conscious ’70s drama mixed with a genre movie, just like the film school brats were getting into at the same time; Day is every inch the ’80s cult movie, ready to be quoted and replayed endlessly on VHS for its slick special effects; and now, Land is a ’00s action blockbuster. Romero’s directorial hand is evident at times, but in terms of the pace, action:story ratio, cinematography, CGI splatter, and more, this is easily interchangeable with any other mid-budget mid-’00s genre movie. Apart from that socio-political commentary, that is.

Talking of CG splatter, oh my does that not go down well with some. I like physical effects as much as the next well-adjusted film fan born before the millennium, but surely CGI is just a tool available now, isn’t it? So there’s some CG blood, or some CG-aided zombies — it’s not as if they were using real blood or real zombies before. It allows Romero and his special effects wizards to pull off some things that they haven’t done before, some of which are very effective. And there’s still tonnes of practical effects too! If you want to see people getting ripped apart by zombies with their guts spilling out everywhere, in traditional Romero style, then… seriously, what’s wrong with you people?! But, erm, you should be satiated.

I will unbegrudgingly concede that Land of the Dead is not the pinnacle of Romero’s work, but I do believe it plays in the same league as its predecessors. Just because he’s now working in a ’00s action-adventure framework doesn’t mean Romero has stopped making points about society — how it is, and how it should be — in a way other genre filmmakers aren’t even bright enough to dream of, never mind actually imbue in their work. If more Hollywood cinema could deliver on thematic intent as well as over-expensive effects and explosions, we’d have a far richer mainstream cinema. Hey, how about someone lets Romero direct a superhero movie?

Part of Week of the Living Dead for Halloween 2013.

The Italian Job (2003)

Posted on October 22, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #34
F. Gary Gray | 106 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA, UK & France / English | 12 / PG-13

This came in for quite a bit of stick on release — how dare they re-make a British classic, etc etc. It didn’t help matters that one of the stars, Edward Norton, was apparently forced to appear against his will as part of his contract with the studio.

Now, I’ve never seen the original Italian Job, but from what I gather the only similarity is they both feature Minis in their climactic sequence — and even then, the original used ‘real’ Minis while this uses those daft big-as-a-regular-car new ones. In that respect it’s one of those remakes/reboots that is just using the name for brand recognition, and they normally turn out to be awful.

But maybe The Italian Job is the exception, because it’s actually a pretty decent little film. OK, it’s not high art, but it is a good time. The characters are amusing, the action sequences moderately thrilling, and while the plot is no great shakes, it’s a decent enough structure to encompass all the expected antics. Most of the supporting cast — the likes of Jason Statham and Seth Green — seem to be having fun, which is occasionally infectious.

In the lead roles, Marky Mark is fortunately not trying too hard to be serious, Charlize Theron makes for a The Female One who isn’t too far into the realms of eye-candy-over-character, and while Edward Norton’s performance is hardly remarkable, it doesn’t smack too much of being phoned in.

I doubt there’s anyone who loves this remake in the same way some people treasure the original, but that’s fine — very rarely (if ever?) do you produce a new classic when you remake a classic. But for a slickly entertaining modern action/heist movie, this does the job.

I am far too pleased with myself for that pun.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009)

Posted on October 18, 2013 by badblokebob

The island town of Swallow Falls exists for one purpose: sardines; the fishing, packing, and distribution thereof. But when the world suddenly realises that sardines are gross, the town’s economy is left in tatters and the only foodstuff the islanders have is sardines. (While we’re on the glum bit, the location of Swallow Falls is identical to the real-world location of Bermuda, except in this reality almost every inhabitant is Caucasian and the island is indisputably part of the US. This is why you don’t scrutinise the geopolitics of kids’ movies, especially American ones.)

However, genius young inventor Flint Lockwood (Bill Hader) invents a machine that can turn water into any food you ask for. When he accidentally fires it off into the atmosphere, it begins to rain burgers, and it looks like the town’s fortunes will face a massive change. But is that all for the best, etc etc etc.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs has a silly title, a silly premise, and I thought it looked kinda silly too, which is why I didn’t bother with it before. A bit like How to Train Your Dragon, really, because then I began to hear good things about it, and when I found myself with the offer of a free Blu-ray (for reasons too dull to go into) I picked this on a whim (and because the other choices were pathetic — I mean, I could pick two, and the other I got was Resident Evil 4 just because I have the first three on DVD. I’ve not even watched the first two sequels, and I only thought the original film was OK. But I digress…)

And, again much like Dragon, Cloudy subverts first impressions by actually being really good. And I mean that as in “good for adults”, not just “good for kids” — not an unworthy aim, and something Cloudy also achieves, but not a main consideration in my personal assessment of things. The main selling point is that it’s very funny. Of course there’s the slapstick cartoon humour, which is well done, but there’s also a lot of great one-liners, random asides, and the like. Not ‘adult jokes’ by any means, but I think it makes the film fun for grown-ups too.

There’s also subplots that deal with why it’s OK to be a nerd/geek/whatever the term is this week, and why that’s better in the long-run (perfect for school-aged kids, I guess); and another about female empowerment, which is probably the kind of thing that ought to be in kids’ movies more often. Not that they don’t have their share of strong or equal female leads, but… well, maybe they do. That’s a Big Discussion for another time, but it’s something I think Cloudy handles notably well. Sure, it’s framed partly in a fairly traditional romance narrative, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem.

I suppose themes of acceptance by society and/or your family, of finding your place in the world, and of proving your worth, are all regular topics of kids’ movies — the “I feel different but I want to fit in” thing seems to be pretty universal. But Cloudy succeeds in making many of these feel fresh, and surrounds it with such fun that even if it didn’t you probably wouldn’t care.

This is buoyed by an array of memorable characters, voiced by a moderately starry cast all giving quality performances. Bruce Campbell is particularly noticeable as the mayor, though Neil Patrick Harris is slightly wasted as Steve the monkey. He’s a very funny character, but that’s in the writing, directing and animation — the voice work is spectacularly minimal. Apparently Harris was offered the lead but turned it down for the “more interesting” part of Steve. Nothing against Hader, but if I were the directors I’d have tried to persuade him to do both.

One final thing I particularly liked was the pace. It seems silly to criticise some 90-minute movies for not getting on with things, but almost inevitably you know scenes or moments, or even whole plot threads, will turn up to slow things down, even in otherwise entertaining films. Not so here. It moves like the clappers through the main plot, the sequences devoted to subplots aren’t tedious (even the romance one), and — perhaps indicative of the speed it’s moving at — the climax starts halfway through the film! That’s not an exaggeration: the events that form the film’s final-act grand-finale begin around the 42-minute mark. You’d think that would unbalance the film, toppling it under the weight of the entire second half being what most films deal with in the final quarter, but no, because it’s still moving at such a rate that you don’t notice. Well, clearly I did notice — but, most importantly, I didn’t mind.

In fact, the only criticism I have is the end credits song. It’s by some Disney pop-brat, it’s called Raining Sunshine, and it’s exactly as dreadful as that sounds. But the actual music in the film is good, particularly the action-movie-esque theme that plays on the Blu-ray menu, so there’s that.

I should probably learn to stop writing off non-Pixar animated movies so readily (and, based on what I’ve heard and seen of their last few efforts, maybe slacken off on the Pixar love. I say that as if it’s news — plenty of people already have; and I’ve never been wholly on that bandwagon anyway. But I digress…) Big, bold, colourful, funny and exciting, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is the kind of film I imagine a lot of kids love and watch on loop. In the process they may even be learning some Important Moral Lessons, which, crucially, aren’t too heavy-handed. Many of these aspects work for adults too. I don’t know if you’d want to watch it on loop, but you may certainly want to watch it again.

The UK free-TV premiere of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is at 4:20pm this Sunday, 18th October, on Channel 5.

Previews of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 are in UK cinemas this weekend, with the film on wide release from next Friday, 25th October.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Posted on September 23, 2013 by badblokebob

aka 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer

The Fantastic Four are the kind of superhero team that people in comics think are a big deal but the wider world aren’t so fussed about, as proven by the lack of success of their two film outings versus the likes of X-Men and The Avengers, not to mention all the other non-team heroes.

That said, the quality of the films themselves doesn’t help much. The first was a woeful wannabe blockbuster, an expensive cheap-looking effort that lacked either entertainment or polish. Somehow it earnt this follow-up. It’s better than the first, though that’s really not saying much.

The plot is nothing to do with the increasing prevalence of geriatric web users (though, to be frank, that might’ve been more interesting), but instead sees a metallic-hued alien surfer (the kind of thing that washes in comics but is a bit “wtf?” when just plonked into the cinema) arriving on Earth and starting to make holes in the planet. He’s the herald for a giant gas cloud thing that’s going to come and eat our world. So that’s not good. One way or another, the titular family get involved in trying to stop this disaster.

For a film with world-ending consequences, it all feels a little slight and lacking in scale. I’d say it feels “of its era” — a slightly indefinable feeling based on not only the quality of its CGI but also the cinematography, the choice of locations, the tone and pace… — but it’s less of its era, more a few (or more) years earlier. It’s six years old now, but it feels more. That’s something I noted about the first film too, interestingly.

It’s also the kind of film where the US military have jurisdiction Everywhere In The World, which is again the kind of thing that used to just slide but doesn’t seem appropriate any more. Apparently the General character was originally meant to be Nick Fury — if it had been S.H.I.E.L.D., rather than the US military, at least that part might’ve made sense.

Although this is an improvement on the near-meritless first movie, it’s still not any great shakes. Hopefully the reboot coming in 18 months won’t be so disappointing.

Underdog (2007)

Posted on July 10, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #5
Frederik Du Chau | 74 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | U / PG

In this big screen live-action version of some old US cartoon, a dog gets superpowers and, naturally, becomes a superhero. That’s pretty much it.

The film is widely disliked, it seems, with a very low rating on IMDb; but I thought it was actually good fun. It’s not Citizen Kane, but it’s not trying to be — it’s a kids’ comedy-adventure, and kids will get the most out of it, but it also has enough wit and charm to see it through for some older viewers.

And there’s Peter Dinklage as the raving villain — you know that’s got to be good.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

Flightplan (2005)

Posted on June 26, 2013 by badblokebob

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with something longer, but at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

2013 #36
Robert Schwentke | 94 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Notorious (to me) for unjustly beating Serenity to #1 at the US box office (a slight we Brits can proudly say went unrepeated), this plane-based uncredited remake of The Lady Vanishes is the kind of film that’s a 12 for no real reason. It contains “moderate violence and suspense”. Wow.

Flying home after her husband’s sudden death, Jodie Foster’s kid goes missing, but no one remembers seeing her. Is Foster mad, or is it a great big plot conceit? You guess. Things progress adequately, it’s only an hour-and-a-half, and then we can all move on to something better. Like Serenity.

Not only is this exactly 100 words, but each half is exactly 50. I know, I’m incredible.

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Category Archives: 2000s

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

Fast & Furious (2009)

Survival of the Dead (2009)

Diary of the Dead (2007)

Land of the Dead: Director’s Cut (2005)

The Italian Job (2003)

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009)

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Underdog (2007)

Flightplan (2005)