World War Z: Extended Action Cut (2013)

Posted on March 21, 2014 by badblokebob

In the weeks leading up to its theatrical release, it was already known that World War Z was going to be an almighty flop. An unscrupulous movie studio had taken a cult novel and thrown away everything but the title, alienating its existing fanbase. They’d spent a fortune making a movie in a traditionally R-rated genre that, if released at R, could never make its money back, and if released at PG-13 would never attract an audience. Then they reshot the entire third act, pushing the budget through the roof and ensuring the resultant film would get critically mauled. A fanbase snubbed, an impossibly huge budget, a genre/rating disconnect, and unavoidably poor reviews to come — World War Z was going to flop, and it was going to flop hard.

Then it came out, and became the highest-grossing film to star Movie Star™ Brad Pitt, and the highest-grossing original film of Summer 2013, and made nearly triple its budget worldwide, and even got fairly good reviews. Maybe I was reading the wrong sources in the run up to its release, or maybe it really was that rarest of things, perhaps even unique: a movie hype-resurrection that was less zombie and more phoenix.

The film sees Pitt’s retired UN investigator called back to duty when a rapidly-spreading plague, which turns people into zombie-like rabid creatures, breaks out around the globe. With his family in tow, he escapes an over-run Philadelphia and ends up with what’s left of the US population on a small fleet of ships, before jetting off around the world on a hunt for answers and, hopefully, a vaccine. Cue large-scale action sequences as director Marc Forster aims for an apocalyptic sci-fi/action epic rather than the zombie genre’s usual stomping ground of claustrophobic supernatural scares.

That, at least, is something different. The first half-hour races through stuff we’ve seen time and again: zombie attacks, humans turning on humans as they loot supermarkets, etc. Here the zombies are of the 28 Days Later-style speedy variety, all the better for creating blockbuster action sequences, such as a huge chase through crowded streets, or a running fight up the stairways of an apartment building. This is where the PG-13 certificate shows through (even though this cut is technically unrated in the US, the fact both versions received a 15 over here is telling): there’s little focus on violence or gore; which is fine, but won’t satisfy the more blood-hungry genre fans.

It’s after this that things, as noted, turn from claustrophobic to post-apocalyptic. The storyline feels moderately fresh, showing us the global scope of such an outbreak, rather than how a global event impacts a small group of people. I believe this is the closest the film gets to the spirit of the novel (which I’ve not read, so take that comparison with a pinch of salt). However, what’s new to the zombie genre isn’t necessarily new in any other respect, and by the time we get to Jerusalem and the characters are again being chased through crowded streets, it begins to feel a tad repetitive. Some of the sequences work well though, particularly a zombie outbreak on a passenger plane.

The re-shot final act is a breath of fresh air. Apparently the originally-filmed version was yet another epic battle, which has been switched for a more tense creep around a semi-abandoned research facility in… Wales. Yep, a big budget Hollywood action movie climaxes in the middle-of-nowhere in Wales. I quite like that. It’s a Wales populated by a Londoner, a Scotsman and a Spaniard, but still. I say “more tense” because this is far from the most nail-biting zombie film you could see. The finale is a nice change of pace, and does work as a climax in spite of the bombast that precedes it, but these are zombies as teen-friendly action movie menace, not adult scare-inducers, so don’t except to feel much fear or surprise.

As to the extended cut, it adds only about seven minutes… but there are 121 differences. I can’t even be bothered to read that properly, never mind recount it. There seem to be myriad tiny extensions to all the action sequences, many of them literally lasting a fraction of a second — someone watched this really closely! I can only presume this is actually the original cut, which was then trimmed for the sake of the MPAA to create a theatrical version, because who would consciously go back to add so many little bits? Some are even described as “very unnecessary extension”s by that summary. Other moments do expand on character, though in a subtle fashion (looks like the attempted rape of our hero’s wife, and the murder of one of the wannabe rapists, previously got the snip), or do add to the gore — clearly, it’s too much for a PG-13, but certainly within the realms of a 15. I can’t imagine any of it makes a great deal of difference to the overall experience, however.

Generally, World War Z is a competently entertaining blockbuster. It moves pleasingly fast, with characters quickly and lightly sketched rather than lingered on — not to everyone’s taste, and I imagine some will find it emotionally cold in the way so many recent spectacle movies are. There’s perhaps room for more, particularly from Daniella Kertesz’s Israeli soldier, who is nonetheless somehow the film’s most appealing character; but I don’t think it was the filmmakers’ aim to make us feel the characters’ plight, but instead to show the scope of a worldwide disaster. It does that pretty well, even if the occasionally-CGI zombies prove to be an I Am Legend-style plasticky distraction, especially when coupled with impossible swooping camera shots — it’s better and more effective in the sections where there’s a grittier feel to the camerawork and practical zombie make-up.

As it lacks the social subtext or extreme gore that the two branches of zombie fandom most value, I don’t think WWZ will find an enduring place in genre-fans’ hearts. As an epic summer action blockbuster, however, it largely passes muster.

World War Z is on Sky Movies Premiere this week, starting today at 4pm and 8pm. It’s also available on Now TV, where the running time suggests it’s the extended cut.

North by Northwest (1959)

Posted on March 9, 2014 by badblokebob

Alfred Hitchcock is famous for a good many movies — I wager most people would jump to Psycho if asked to name one, but that’s not to ignore Rear Window, Vertigo, Rebecca, Dial M for Murder, Strangers on a Train, Notorious, Rope… And those are just the others on the IMDb Top 250 — what about The Birds, or The 39 Steps, or… so many more. But of them all, North by Northwest is so packed with his trademark plots, characters, and style, that it is perhaps the ultimate Hitchcock movie.

A ‘wrong man’ spy thriller, it starts with Cary Grant’s New York exec, Roger Thornhill, being mistakenly snatched by some hoods. Quizzed by their boss, he can’t answer any of his kidnapper’s questions because he doesn’t have a clue who they think he is. Before long he finds himself on the run from the police, and on the tail of the mysterious criminals, desperate for the truth and to clear his name. Along the way we’re treated to a blend of suspense, humour and action that could be a tonal mess but, under such a sure guiding hand, feels more like all-out entertainment.

The big set pieces (the crop duster; Mount Rushmore) may be well known now, but being aware of them isn’t the same as seeing them play out in full in context, and they remain fabulous. The direction is as glorious as you’d expect, not just in those big action sequences but in any given scene, be it a simple conversation or an auction room face-off. Throughout there’s gorgeous cinematography by Robert Burks, which looks utterly stunning on Blu-ray. There’s great special effects work too — not something you commonly call on in a ’50s thriller, but it helps to create some especially memorable imagery.

Grant is as wonderful as ever, a perfect ‘everyman’ to guide us through the crazy turns of events, but also finding the appropriate level of humorous edge where it exists. Eva Marie Saint is a textbook ‘Hitchcock Blonde’, attractive but duplicitous — women, eh? James Mason makes for an excellent English-accented villain — today it may be a terrible cliché to use Brits as villains in Hollywood movies, but we’re so damn good at it. That said, Martin Landau makes for a deliciously creepy henchman, so there’s no monopoly. There’s also Leo G. Carroll, who to me will always be best known from Science Fiction/Double Feature, but is equally memorable here as the apparent head of US intelligence.

Perfection is a rare — perhaps impossible — thing to achieved in film… and far be it from me to criticise Hitch, but I’m going go. I think it’s revealed far too early that (spoilers!) George Kaplan doesn’t really exist. Wouldn’t it be more effective as an ‘end of act two’ twist, when Thornhill himself finds out? He’s our figure of identification after all. Still, in the grand scheme of things this is a minor complaint: though it may’ve been even more effective if we didn’t find out until much later, the story and excitement still work regardless of the audience having that knowledge.

While Psycho may stand out from Hitchcock’s filmography for the common man, it’s not particularly typical of his oeuvre as a whole. For that, it’s difficult to imagine a film that is a better summation, distillation, and celebration of his work than North by Northwest.

North by Northwest was viewed as part of my What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…? 12 for 2013 project, which you can read more about here.

It also placed 4th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2013, which can be read in full here.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)

Posted on March 5, 2014 by badblokebob

Based on a novel by Morton Freedgood (writing as John Godey), previously adapted into a classic ’70s thriller (and a forgotten ’90s TV movie), The Taking of Pelham 123 (aka 1 2 3, aka One Two Three) concerns the hijacking of the titular New York Subway train (that being the 1:23pm from Pelham) by a mysterious gang of men (led here by John Travolta) who begin negotiating with a regular-joe train controller (played here by Denzel Washington) for money in exchange for the lives of their hostages.

As with most remakes, the need for this film to exist is questionable. Reportedly the original novel tells the story from the perspective of more than 30 characters, “keeping readers off balance because it is unknown which characters the writer might suddenly discard”, but the 1974 film focused in on the relationship between the hostage taker and the de facto lead negotiator. This film emulates that dynamic. While Denzel Washington and John Travolta are both actors who veer between competent and great, and so could theoretically match the performances of Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw in the earlier film, unfortunately they just don’t. Compared to the memorable characters created before, here the acting is crushingly adequate.

The writing doesn’t help, with stapled-on backstory additions that promise development and twists but ultimately go nowhere. Even the minor part played by the hostages is lesser here. In my review of the ’70s version I commented that I didn’t think they had enough to do, but that film did have a pleasing element of the hostages being more unlikeable than their captors. None of that here, where the captives are either even more unnoticeable, or heroic off-duty military types. So far so standard.

Otherwise, the film can be characterised as Tony Scott’s extraordinarily expensive take on a relatively straightforward story. Believe it or not, they pumped $100 million into this movie. Watching the disc’s making-of material, it becomes apparent how they managed to spend so much, but it remains strikingly needless. There was a tonne of research into how something like this might go down for real, including hiring former gang members for some of the supporting roles. Such attention to detail doesn’t come over on screen, the film still feeling like a Movie-Land thriller rather than a real-world drama. There was also a lot of Doing It For Real, including much filming in active subway tunnels. A headache to organise, and I’m sure an authentic experience for the cast and crew, but is the result on screen any better than they would’ve got from doing it on a soundstage? The makers clearly think so. I’m not convinced.

If those behind-the-scenes decisions are lost in the final film, then you can’t miss Scott’s whizz-bang direction. It’s the same grab-bag of visual tricks and ticks that dominated the latter stages of his career — jerky cutting, weird saturation, step printing, anything that makes the film look like it’s been massively over-processed. For me this extreme style sometimes worked (Man on Fire, Beat the Devil, even the unloved Domino), but, on balance, he probably went too far with it too often. Applied here to such a meat-and-potatoes tale, it feels like they’re trying to jazz it up because it can’t sustain itself otherwise.

Thing is, it can. Just about. There’s nothing special here; nothing to make modern audiences look back on it fondly in decades to come, as many do to the ’70s version. For fans of the genre, though, this is a solidly adequate experience.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is on Film4 tonight at 9pm.

Oblivion (2013)

Posted on February 7, 2014 by badblokebob

As Oblivion informs us in a hefty chunk of voiceover exposition at the start, the year is 2077, several decades on from a war with aliens that we won but left the Earth in ruins. Humanity fled to a colony on Titan, but the last party to depart remain in orbit aboard a giant space station. Waiting to join them are Tom Cruise and Andrea Riseborough, the last humans on Earth, serving the final few weeks of their mission to watch over the drones that guard giant water-collecting machines, sucking up the oceans for the benefit of the new colony.

Any film that begins with a screed that long just to explain what the heck is happening is setting itself up for a fall, and it’s a shame that Oblivion feels the need to. Indeed, the only reason it ‘needs’ to is for the benefit of the instant-fix blockbuster crowd, at which the film is at least partially aimed. The whole shebang is recounted again by Cruise to Olga Kurylenko when she turns up about a third of the way through — the intelligent viewer would, I think, be prepared to go with it until then. Fortunately, it doesn’t destroy the film: unlike the twist-ruining narration from the opening of Dark City’s theatrical cut, this at least is genuinely the initial setup, on which twists will later be performed.

You could probably have generated a whole film about this world as it appears to Cruise and Riseborough, but it’s obvious from the very start that there’s something more going on. The guessing game is part of the fun, and as with almost any film with twists some viewers will get them bang-on and feel it’s all blatant, and some will be genuinely surprised. Also, as with many a tale desperate to surprise its audience thus, there are holes in the story and its logic (for a good summary of some of the major sticking points, check out ghostof82’s review). Your mileage will vary on whether they undermine the entire enterprise or wash; for me, it hangs together well enough… while you’re watching, at least.

There are a lot more science-fiction films around these days than there used to be, thanks to both the lowering costs of special effects and a generation (or two) of new(er) filmmakers who grew up with Star Wars and all that followed. Most of these films are regular old action-adventure movies just with more expensive trappings, but occasionally you get something that tries to engage with sci-fi ideas or concepts. Credit where it’s due to story-creator/director Joseph Kosinski for attempting that here. Some have accused it of stealing those ideas from previous movies, but I think such criticisms are over-emphasised. There are only so many stories and ideas in the world, after all, and only so many concepts and ways to explore them. Oblivion isn’t so derivative that you can clearly pick out one, or even two, things it’s ripped off.

Don’t worry if you do prefer your sci-fi blockbusterised, though, because Oblivion comes with its fair share of action sequences. Even though it doesn’t rush through events (it has the kind of pace where I thought it was nearing the end just 40 minutes in, which seemed to be a problem until I accepted it was telling a different, longer story than I’d thought), there’s an array of appropriately-timed shoot-outs and spaceship chases to keep the mainstream happy. I like a good action sequence, and some of the ones Kosinski presents have their moments, but I also found I could have done without most of them. To a degree they seemed to have been slotted in so it could look like an Action Movie in the trailers, the aim (as ever) being to pull in the punters, thereby justifying the budget needed to create such a slick SF world.

If that’s the case, it was worth it, because the visuals are one of Oblivion’s strongest points. The design department give us a sleek and glossy style, but one that still feels plausible — like an expensive Grand Designs project, rather than the plastic-and-lens-flare of J.J. Abrams’ Trek movies. The vistas of a ruined Earth complement the industrial design well, with only the odd dud CG shot in a movie overloaded with visual effects. The drones seem to be a mix of practical props and must-be-CGI, which gives them a solidity and therefore threat that at times feels palpable. This is emphasised by Kosinski’s well-composed shot selection, supported by Richard Francis-Bruce’s editing and Claudio Miranda’s cinematography, both of which are wonderfully classical (no shaky handheld camerawork or cut-to-shreds action; at least, not that I recall). The scene where a drone invades Cruise’s home particularly sticks in my mind.

With the aforementioned plot issues, not to mention an ending that some will find too twee (I saw the broad strokes of the epilogue coming from quite a way out, so can’t say I was surprised), Oblivion is not quite all it could have been. But it gets considerably closer than I expected — it’s undoubtedly an A for effort — and that, bolstered by faultless technical aspects, makes for an all-round enjoyable experience.

Oblivion comes to Sky Movies from today, debuting at 4:10pm and 8pm on Sky Movies Premiere. It’s also already available on NOW TV.

Premium Rush (2012)

Posted on January 28, 2014 by badblokebob

Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as a Manhattan bicycle courier in this near-real-time action-thriller from co-writer/director David Koepp. Charged with getting a letter from one end of Manhattan to the other through rush hour traffic ASAP, Gordon-Levitt finds himself coming up against a loony cop (Michael Shannon) who for some reason is desperate to get his hands on said envelope…

The emphasis is firmly on “action” during the film’s brisk hour-and-a-half running time, the plot primarily an excuse for bike-related chases and stunts. And that’s fine by me. You don’t need to be a cycling nut to enjoy what’s on display here, much as you don’t need to be a petrolhead or NRA member to enjoy regular action movie theatrics. There aren’t many (or any?) action flicks based around pushbikes, so the whole thing comes across as pretty original. Mix that with invigorated direction, especially in the editing and graphics (think Sherlock), but which doesn’t sink to en vogue handheld action choppiness, and you have a movie that feels both classical (many reviews note a sense of early-’00s-ness) and almost innovative, a winning combination that feels fresh.

Although the bike chases and tricks are the star of the film, the story is uncommonly structured through an array of flashbacks, gradually unveiling everyone’s motivations in a series of overlapping perspectives that reveal why the little envelope is so important. It still feels like someone came up with the bike-action concept and then worked out a plot that would facilitate it, but piecing together the mystery adds another level of entertainment. There’s also some romance guff that could’ve been cut without hurting anything, but Koepp wisely keeps it to a couple of fast scenes and lines so it never intrudes too heavily.

Gordon-Levitt makes for as appealing a lead as ever, not that his charm is called on much, while Shannon is a memorably crazed villain. He’s a better fit here than he was as Man of Steel’s General Zod, but he’s a delectable nemesis in any context. It’s true that his barminess serves to stretch the concept’s real-world plausibility, but so does a thin bit halfway through that struggles to drive the scenario on to feature length, not to mention a boatload of Chinese gangster stuff. But hey, this is an action-thriller — if you want real-world plausibility, you’re in the wrong genre.

Basing an action movie around bicycles is a pleasant twist on the familiar, making Premium Rush a serviceably entertaining hour-and-a-half for those who like straightforward thrills and well-made chase sequences.

Man of Steel (2013)

Posted on January 17, 2014 by badblokebob

When Doctor Who returned in 2005, eager to find a new mainstream audience, can you imagine how well it would have gone down if it spent the first six or seven minutes on an alien world where old men with silly names wearing strange costumes argued about politics? Fastforward the best part of a decade and, buoyed no doubt by the various scales of success enjoyed by the likes of Avatar (strange alien world, silly names) and Game of Thrones (arguing about politics, silly names), that’s exactly how Superman reboot Man of Steel chooses to spend its opening 20 minutes. (In percentage terms, “6 or 7” is to Doctor Who’s brisk 45 minutes as “20” is to Man of Steel’s indulgent 143.)

Produced by Christopher Nolan and other creatives behind the uber-successful Batman reboot The Dark Knight Trilogy, this is intended to do a similar thing for Superman: a present-day, real-world relaunch. Which begins with a huge sequence on a crazy alien world. Well done, chaps. And that’s before we get into the merits of grounding clean-cut Boy’s Own all-American hero Superman in our ideologically complex modern world. Is that what Superman is? Based on critical and fan reaction to Man of Steel, your mileage may vary — some seem to find it fresh and invigorating, others a betrayal of what this archetypal superhero is meant to be.

Personally, I find it a valid thing to attempt. Rather than take the Superman mythology as read, here Nolan and co — including screenwriter David Goyer and director Zack Snyder — have tried to imagine what would really happen if an alien baby with incredible powers arrived in our world. So Clark Kent hides his abilities, goes on a trek around the world to ‘find himself’, and when he’s uncovered there’s mass media and military interest. Which is pretty accurate, I think. If some guy started stopping oil rigs collapsing single-handed, or flying around the place, the military’s hardly going to sit back and go, “oh OK then”.

Snyder emphasises this “it’s real!” tone with grainy handheld cinematography, which I’m sure is consciously designed to look like a ’70s independent drama. It’s also designed to mask a simple fact: such presentation details and a languorous first half aside, this is a pretty standard blockbuster. Shoot it with clean digital visuals and cut the “finding himself” segments back to a brisk first act and you’d have a completely standard array of big punch-ups and faintly ludicrous plotting. It’s interesting how much a ‘gritty’ sheen (as it were) can persuade people that what they’re watching is revolutionary across the board, but really it’s just a different way of presenting your common-or-garden blockbuster content.

The filmmakers have certainly bought into their own conceit, to a frankly laughable extent. The Blu-ray contains a featurette called All-Out Action, which the menu describes as follows: “The action in Man of Steel soars to new heights with a level of realism never before seen in a super hero film.” Hahahaha! Realism my arse. Once the action kicks in it’s positively comic book. Men are hurled around like rag dolls; Metropolis is destroyed in a huge flying punch-up, which just feels like a less effective re-hash of The Matrix Revolutions. There’s nothing wrong with comic book action in a comic book movie, in my opinion, but shooting it on desaturated grain-addled film stock with handshake and ragged zooms does not make your OTT computer-generated fight “soar to new heights with a level of realism never before seen”.

This is before we even get on to the morally divisive aspects of said fighting. Much talk focused on two elements (spoilers follow for the next three paragraphs): the large-scale destruction of Metropolis, and Superman killing Zod. Defenders say that destruction happens, that Metropolis was evacuated, and that Superman had no choice but to kill Zod to save innocent lives. Opposers say we don’t need to see so much disaster on screen (especially in the wake of other films, like The Avengers, showing similar city-level destruction), and that it’s out of character for Superman to murder someone in cold blood and it simply shouldn’t have happened. My view is split between the two.

As to the destruction of the city, I think the criticism is right. The city clearly isn’t evacuated before buildings start falling — it’s being evacuated, but no one even knew to start running before the Massive Machine Of Destruction (I forget what it was actually for) turns up and starts destroying things. People run into the streets as buildings fall on them. As a viewer, how can you miss that hundreds, possibly thousands, of innocents are dying? The cinematography makes it look like 9/11 — incredibly like 9/11, in fact. That was 12 years ago by the time of the film’s release, but is it OK to trade on such iconography in a blockbuster entertainment? Should we just ignore the notion that so many ‘extras’ are dying because, hey, it’s just a superhero movie? But aren’t we meant to be taking this as Real World, chaps?

The fate of Zod, on the other hand, is a different matter. I think it’s interesting to push heroes — heck, characters fullstop — in new and challenging directions. It’s all too easy to just avoid putting a character in a certain situation so you don’t have to see what they’d do; to give Superman an easy way to lock the villain up so he doesn’t have to make any other decision. But what if that isn’t an option? What if someone just as powerful is running around killing people at random; what if it’s within your power to stop him from imminently murdering a family with kids, but the only way to achieve that is to kill him? That’s the position Snyder, Goyer and Nolan put Superman in at the climax, and that’s the decision he has to make. Does he do the right thing? In fairness, I think that’s the debate the film is asking for. It’s not like Superman walks away fine with what he did, and I expect the idea is that his actions will have an impact on his values going forward.

There’s a lot else that Man of Steel plays with in the Superman legend besides the violence and cinematography. Some people will surely miss the bumbling Clark Kent, the burgeoning relationship with Lois Lane, and so on. These elements are eventually brought in, sometimes in a modified way, which makes it feel like they’ve been put in place — Superman Begins style — to be used in a sequel. Except we know the sequel is headed off in the Batman vs Superman direction, so how much ‘clumsy Clark’ we’ll get to see is questionable. I have to say, I don’t blame the makers going a new way — how do you compete with the Christopher Reeve classics? And if you try to emulate them, you end up with Superman Returns, which was a box office and critical success but for some reason is remembered as a failure in both regards.

A 21st Century reinvention of the oldest superhero is an interesting notion, and in some regards Man of Steel works; but those successes are regularly marred by superficial ‘innovations’ that don’t click. The final result is a standard blockbuster masquerading as something revolutionary; an adequate film that indulges itself, leading to a belief it’s something more, which is ultimately to the detriment of its audience.

Kick-Ass 2 (2013)

Posted on December 25, 2013 by badblokebob

When the first Kick-Ass was released back in 2010, one of the main stories was that it had flopped at the box office. That was poppycock: it opened at #1 in the US, and because it was made for just $30m it more than broke even in the US alone, eventually earning a total of $96m worldwide. It was an even bigger hit on DVD and Blu-ray, with an uncommonly large percentage of home entertainment sales being on BD, helping it earn even more cash.

Come the release of Kick-Ass 2 in September 2013 and the first film was suddenly referred to as a renowned box office hit. I guess the media have very short memories. And it made a good stick to beat the sequel with, when it opened at #5 in the US with just $13m. What a flop! Except it only cost $28m, has gone on to make just over that in the US, and has climbed to a total of $59.6m worldwide. Not close to as big as the first film, but even before the inevitably-successful DVD & Blu-ray numbers that’s a strong performance.

Will we see a third film? That certainly looks plausible. Should we? Well…

Written and directed by Jeff Wadlow, based on two comic book miniseries (Hit-Girl and Kick-Ass 2) by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr., the movie of Kick-Ass 2 rejoins the characters a couple of years on. A wave of Kick-Ass-inspired costumed heroes now patrol the streets, though Kick-Ass himself, Dave Lizewski (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), has more or less retired. Mindy Macready (Chloë Grace Moretz) still fights crime as Hit-Girl, hiding that fact from her disapproving guardian (Morris Chestnut). Meanwhile, Chris D’Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) wants revenge on Kick-Ass for murdering his father, but is being kept out of the way by his mother and the remains of his father’s mob organisation… until she dies in a freak accident, when Chris dubs himself “the Motherfucker” and sets about forming a gang of supervillains…

If that sounds like a convoluted setup, that’s kind of how it plays on screen too — and it’s only the start of it. This is a somewhat muddled second instalment, taking time to re-introduce us to various characters and follow all their stories. Whereas the first film introduced elements gradually as they came into contact with the central narrative of a schoolboy-turned-superhero, Kick-Ass 2 picks up each character when they’ve more or less gone their separate ways, then sets about bringing them together again. So rather than one straightforward thread that others naturally emerge alongside, here Wadlow must juggle three disparate tales from the start, before he eventually ties them together.

It feels a little meandering, then, as Kick-Ass joins up with a superhero team trying to do good, the Motherfucker gradually assembles his own team of villains, and Mindy tries to fit in as a regular high school girl. You can see the germs of good ideas here, but how well they function is debatable. Whereas the first film riffed on archetypal characters and plots from regular superhero movies, as such providing an entertaining deconstruction of the genre, the sequel doesn’t feel as focussed. The themes are somewhat familiar — superheroes leading to supervillains, as seen in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, or the assembly of superhero teams, as seen in The Avengers — but it seems these are coincidental similarities, not conscious points of reference, comparison, juxtaposition, or examination.

Wadlow is an inadequate replacement for the first film’s director/co-writer Matthew Vaughn. In fairness he’s working to an even tighter budget (in the deleted scenes, he reveals a whole 30-second action beat in the Hit Girl/Mother Russia fight was cut purely because they couldn’t afford a small patch of green screen replacement in one shot), but that’s not the real problem. There just aren’t as many gags, the action sequences aren’t as viscerally satisfying, the story meanders a bit in the middle rather than barrelling through like the first. In part this is the widely-identified fact that Moretz is now a teenager behaving like a teenager rather than the shocking/amusing pre-teen swearing like a sailor of the first movie, but it’s a more endemic problem than that. Whether it stems from Millar’s original comic or Wadlow’s treatment of it, I don’t know, but on the whole it feels less inventive, less vital, and consequently less exciting (though there are some good sequences) and less funny (though there are some proper laughs).

Wadlow does make welcome changes to Millar’s notoriously nihilistic comic, however: instead of gang-raping Kick-Ass’ girlfriend, the Motherfucker can’t get it up (I guess because Kick-Ass isn’t dating his mother (ho ho!)); instead of murdering Colonel Stars & Stripes’ dog, he remarks that “I’m not that evil!”; and so on. The film version still has its points of offensiveness and some outré ideas, certainly, but the needlessly-harsh edge has been taken off, especially when it comes to punishing characters who are innocent. With the exception of Kick-Ass’ dad, but then that’s a superhero staple… just one that’s more violently executed here than normal.

The quality cast keep the film watchable at all times, and the tight budget doesn’t always stand in the way — some of the green screen work may be shockingly cheap, as seen in the van sequence ever since the trailer, but the action choreography of such sequences is still good — meaning that Kick-Ass 2 remains entertaining for fans of the first outing. But it isn’t as strong a production all round, and doesn’t exceed the original in any regard — indeed, any emotional investment in the characters (and there is some) is carried over from the first film’s groundwork — meaning that those fans may be entertained, but will also be a bit disappointed.

So is Kick-Ass 3 a good idea? Kick-Ass 2 does provide a kind of conclusion to the story… but it also leaves it wide open for more, not to mention that Millar & Romita’s third comic book miniseries (currently running) is supposed to be the definitive final act for the characters. It would be a shame not to see that completed on screen, but perhaps with more care in how it’s executed.

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

Shanghai Knights (2003)

Posted on December 22, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #90
David Dobkin | 106 mins* | TV | 16:9** | USA & Hong Kong / English & Mandarin | 12 / PG-13

Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson are back as… um… whatever their characters were called, in this follow-up to Shanghai Noon, which I presume was a commercial success but I found somewhat lacking. Here, in a storyline possibly created after someone thought up the title, Chan and Wilson travel to London on a mission to stop someone evil doing something bad.

The plot isn’t really the point with these films, is it? No, that’s the twin delights of humour and action — and as ever, it’s Chan’s action scenes that are the highlight. They’re inventive, exciting, funny, and the speed and dexterity with which they’re performed is often astounding. Those are definitely the reason to watch. And for fans of Hong Kong martial arts movies, this is the first on-screen battle between Chan and Donnie Yen. Bonus. (Apparently the DVD & Blu-ray releases include “full” versions of four fights amongst their special features, which makes me slightly tempted to make a purchase.)

As for the humour… well, there are fewer poor comedy asides than last time, though one in particular (a pillow fight in a brothel) goes on far too long. There’s also, with hindsight, a supporting role on the unintentionally-amusing/fascinating spectrum: a fairly major supporting role for a 12-year-old Aaron Johnson — now Aaron Taylor-Johnson, aka John Lennon, Kick-Ass, etc. Aww, bless ‘im, etc.

Knights as a whole feels like it moves better than its predecessor — it gets going quicker, without the need to establish these characters and force them together; there’s a greater reliance on those quality action sequences. The guest cast feels a bit bargain basement, though the villains — Aiden Gillen and the aforementioned Yen — are of a higher calibre. This means we’re treated to a pair of great climaxes, with Chan first having that punch-up with Yen, followed by a three-sword duel with Gillen (or possibly a stuntman).

Sadly, it’s not all so rosy. England looks more like the Czech Republic (where, as a mid-’00s Hollywood production set in The Past, it was of course filmed). There are dreadful music choices, again — a weird mash-up of modern songs (I say “modern” — terribly dated to turn-of-the-millennium now), left-over Western themes, and an over-long riff on Singin’ in the Rain that doesn’t fit at all. And it plays fast and loose with history, taking in historical figures like Charlie Chaplin, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Jack the Ripper and Queen Victoria, plus messing around with the geography of Stonehenge, the origins of Sherlock Holmes, and more. IMDb list 23 anachronisms in all. But hey, it’s a comedy action movie! Sadly, these divergences are rarely to great comedic effect.

In the end, I’m not sure if I like it more or less than the first film. The Western setting was a smoother fit in many ways, but here there’s a less stodgy plot, a general reduction in the overlong comedy sequences, and even better action sequences. All things considered, I think Knights may actually have the edge.

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

* This is the TV running time. According to the BBFC, the PAL time is 110 minutes. ^
** It’s cropped again, though not so noticeably this time. ^

Shanghai Noon (2000)

Posted on December 21, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #89
Tom Dey | 102 mins* | TV | 16:9** | USA & Hong Kong / English, Mandarin & Sioux | 12 / PG-13

Hong Kong martial arts legend Jackie Chan and Hollywood funnyman also-ran Owen Wilson team up for a film that I don’t think anyone involved could reasonably deny is just “Rush Hour in the Wild West”. Unfortunately, the result is surprisingly lacklustre.

There are two reasons we come to a film like this, exemplified by my summation of the two leads: action and comedy. Some of Chan’s contributions to the former are entertaining, but they’re by no means his best work. Sadly, the latter isn’t that great either. The film works better for both its leads when they’re apart, and that defeats the object. It’s not that Chan and Wilson don’t have chemistry, it’s just that the film gets bogged down in showing their relationship. It’s not funny enough to merit so much screen time.

Indeed, the film as a whole is far too long, meandering through subplots and sequences that need a good trim, if not dumping entirely. This is an action-comedy that runs close to 2 hours — it’s not as if it needs padding; cut it back to 90 minutes and it’d probably be fine. That said, the editing is kinda bizarre, with random jump cuts and comedic asides just plonked in. Fight scenes are occasionally over-cut too — considering Chan can do all these stunts and moves, and indeed is doing them, why has it been cut to look like it’s trying to hide a stuntman?!

Things that could have (should have) been fixed way back at the writing stage leer out at the viewer. The plot is treated almost perfunctorily, as if it’s not interesting enough to bother explaining or expounding upon. It’s hardly highly original or complex, but it feels as if important beats or character motivations have just been skipped over. For instance, the character/story impact of the final fight would be so easy to build up a bit, but they haven’t and so it falls a bit limp. Not to mention the bit when two characters who are essentially on the same side have a duel when they have more pressing things to worry about — save the Princess first, fight amongst yourselves later! Then there’s all the time given to Wilson’s rivalry with the local sheriff/martial/whatever, which we’re told exists, isn’t really built from anything, and suddenly is half the focus of the climax.

Also, it’s kinda racist and/or xenophobic, towards both the Chinese and Native Americans. Or maybe it’s just unthinkingly clichéd. Or old fashioned — it is 13 years old. On the other hand, that still puts it this side of the millennium. There’s a solid dose of sexism too. It’s established, almost in passing, that the Princess (Lucy Liu) knows her own mind, is clearly quite intelligent, and can fight a bit. Expect her to show that off in the climax? No. She eventually gets in about three kicks before someone twists her ankle. This is after she ran away, not by going out the front door, but by climbing some rickety scaffolding. How dumb is she?! Or, rather, how dumb is she suddenly when the plot wants a damsel in distress bit.

Shanghai Noon should be a lot of fun. It should be Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson engaging in a bit of comedy between skilfully choreographed, occasionally amusing, balletically staged fight sequences. But it isn’t. It’s laden with an underwritten plot, bulked up by clichés, stereotypes, overplayed character scenes, humour that doesn’t work, and a shortage of judicious editing. It is still kinda fun, but it could so easily have been more.

Tomorrow, Shanghai Knights.

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

* On TV, where there were no studio logos and obviously foreshortened end credits, it ran 102 minutes 26 seconds. I cite this just in case anything was cut from the middle, because the full PAL running time is 3 minutes 29 seconds more. (I’m nothing if not thorough.) ^

** It’s painfully obvious that the TV version has been cropped from its original 2.35:1. And you thought pan & scan died with 4:3 TVs. ^

Sharknado (2013)

Posted on December 17, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #66
Anthony C. Ferrante | 84 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | 15

Sharknado is a defining film of 2013. The volume of conversation it generated, which achieved the near-impossibility of higher viewing figures for its repeats, is exceptional. So I was determined to give it its due in a full-length review. But I can’t be bothered — it doesn’t merit such attention.

Rather than attempt something with genuine ambition that failed, the makers undertook the cynical manufacture of a film “so bad it’s good”. Not as funny as it thinks, with awful CGI, worse acting, nonsensical plotting, and that brazen “look how bad a film we made!” attitude, it’s a pathetically dull mess.

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.

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

Sharknado featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2013, which can be read in full here.

100Films.co.uk

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

Category Archives: Action

World War Z: Extended Action Cut (2013)

North by Northwest (1959)

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)

Oblivion (2013)

Premium Rush (2012)

Man of Steel (2013)

Kick-Ass 2 (2013)

Shanghai Knights (2003)

Shanghai Noon (2000)

Sharknado (2013)