Cube (1997)

Posted on December 14, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #83a
Vincenzo Natali | 87 mins | DVD | 15 / R

I’ve seen Cube a couple of times before, but, as I’ve watched it again immediately before taking on the two heavily-criticised sequels, I thought it might be worth throwing in my opinion on the original too.

Cube has a deceptively simple concept — a sci-fi/horror/mystery in which six strangers are trapped together trying to escape a series of cube-shaped rooms, some of which contain deadly traps — but within that it pulls a lot together. The major element, arguably, is the mystery of what the cube is — where is it, who built it, how does it work, why are those people there, is there a way out? Some of these questions are answered but, crucially, not all of them, and it’s partly due to this, ironically, that it’s a satisfying experience. In its series of careful, measured, necessary reveals, the film strikes a perfect balance between what it lets the viewer know — and the revelations are expertly paced throughout — and what it keeps hidden, either for the viewer to deduce or interpret for themselves, or simply because one doesn’t need to know.

Within the cube and its mystery there are the characters. Depending on your point of view they’re either well-drawn sketches interacting realistically in an unrealistic situation, or archetypes representing different facets of humanity, or simply chess pieces to move the clever construction — of both plot and setting — forward. At times the movie does work like a slasher-horror, picking off characters one by one, but after a few grisly deaths it rather transcends that. The scenes where characters debate and argue aren’t quite as engrossing as when they’re puzzling over the cube, but nor do they drag. Not all the performances are good — Maurice Dean Wint in particular lets the side down for much of the film — but the character arcs are never less than believable and well considered.

Cube manages to effectively juggle gruesome horror deaths, sci-fi mysteries, an awful lot of maths (don’t worry, you don’t need to understand it) and character-based drama. It’s a brilliant low-budget (not that it shows) understated film, which seems to have been somewhat forgotten these days, probably under the weight of the two widely derided and unnecessary follow-ups. But that remains for me to see. Whatever they may be like, everyone interested in the more intelligent end of the sci-fi spectrum should see Cube.

For a brief overview of the Cube trilogy, please look here.

The Invasion (2007)

Posted on November 13, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #72
Oliver Hirschbiegel | 99 mins | download | 15 / PG-13

The Invasion is a modern thriller aimed at a mainstream audience, which naturally means it begins at the end. Is there a reason for this? As is too often the case these days, no. The only explanation I could come up with is that such an opening suggests there’ll eventually be some some actual scares in this sci-fi/horror, and so is designed to help the viewer persevere through the distinctly lacking film that follows.

Things go sharply down hill from the lacklustre opening ending opening: Jeremy Northam accidentally stabs himself with an Evil Alien Parasite Thing in a blatant genre convention that seems to have moved from the “necessary to get on with the plot” to the “badly obvious cliché”. The order of scenes that follow seems to be a random mess — for example, Nicole Kidman’s kid, Olly, begins to have nightmares again; a few scenes later, his dad (Northam, now taken over by the Evil Alien Parasite Thing) phones wanting to see him after a long absence; a few scenes later, Kidman tells a friend that Olly’s nightmares restarted after he was told he was going to see his dad. This is not an isolated example.

Much of the dialogue is on the level of bad exposition, but, to rub salt in the wound, it explains things we’ve already been shown. Normally reliable actors turn in flat performances with such an awkward script, which ponderously works its way through a plot that’s far too slow-moving considering how obvious it is. We know it’s an Evil Alien Parasite Thing within the opening minutes and even a passing familiarity with the genre will let you know how things are going to end up (as if opening with the ending didn’t give you a hint), but we’re still treated to near-endless scenes of our luckily-immune heroes trying to work out why everyone else is behaving oddly. It takes a full 36 minutes for Kidman to finally realise what we’ve all known from the start, but just in case you’ve missed the bleeding obvious there’s a pile of handy flashbacks. More to the point, how come only two people in the entire world (the other being Daniel Craig) have noticed what’s going on? The possessed have all the subtlety of a Jeremy Clarkson joke, walking around in a permanent mechanical daze.

A lot of articles have noted that the studio disliked how the film ended and so brought in other writers and director(s) to re-shoot the final act, aiming to bolster the action. Thank goodness they did, because it’s at this point that there’s finally something worth watching. The aliens’ dominance is a near-inevitable and obvious eventuality from very early on, and so structurally speaking should have been reached sooner. Unfortunately, when it does arrive, the weak early scenes mean we don’t care about the characters, so while some of the more action-packed scenes are well staged they have little genuine impact. Some good moments sneak through though, like a couple’s very public suicide, or… No, that was the only one I noted.

In this structural imbalance The Invasion is reminiscent of I Am Legend: a ponderous dramatic first half turns into an all-action assault as the only uninfected people are relentlessly pursued by the infected majority. In an inversion of the disappointing (but not dreadful) Will Smith vehicle, The Invasion‘s first half is dire while the second at least has some excitement and jeopardy. In Legend it was a shame that they couldn’t keep the first half running for the rest of the film; here you’re glad the studio intervened and forced some actual events on the film. It would be quite interesting to see how it was all meant to turn out originally, but I doubt it would be entertaining in the slightest.

Once it’s all over there’s a truly dreadful info-dump that explains what happened next. Besides making you cringe and wonder how a piece of exposition so blatant could ever have been greenlit, all it achieves is the delivery of a killer blow — not by blatantly stating the film’s subtext (which it does — not so ‘sub’ then), but with what that subtext actually is: when humanity is taken over by aliens, war stops; ergo, war is what makes us human. Lovely.

The Invasion featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2008, which can be read in full here.

Batman: Gotham Knight (2008)

Posted on October 22, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #65
Shojiro Nishimi, Futoshi Higashide, Hiroshi Morioka, Yasuhiro Aoki, Toshiyuki Kubooka & Jong-Sik Nam | 73 mins | DVD | 15 / PG-13

Gotham Knight is an American-Japanese produced anime — the animation is Japanese and anime-styled, but the original soundtrack is English — that aims to bridge the gap between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. In this case that equates to six short films, with some narrative connections, strung together to make a movie.

Overseen by executive produce Bruce Timm (Batman: The Animated Series, and most of the DCAU) and all with story credits to Jordan Goldberg (Nolan’s assistant on Batman Begins and now associate producer on The Dark Knight), the shorts, in order of appearance, are:

Have I Got a Story For You, written by Josh Olson (A History of Violence) and directed by first-time director Shojiro Nishimi;

Crossfire, written by Greg Rucka (Gotham Central and other comics) and directed by first-time director Futoshi Higashide;

Field Test, written by Goldberg and directed by Hiroshi Morioka (Tsubasa Chronicle);

In Darkness Dwells, written by David Goyer (Batman Begins, Blade trilogy) and directed by Yasyhiro Aoki (one episode of Tweeny Witches);

Working Through Pain, written by Brian Azzarello (100 Bullets and other comics) and directed by first-time director Toshiyuki Kubooka;

Deadshot, written by Alan Burnett (Batman: Mask of the Phantasm) and directed by Jong-Sik Nam (He-Man 2002).

Compiling that list, one has to wonder about the blurb’s claim that these shorts are directed by “some of the world’s most visionary animators”. I suppose the key word is “animators” (rather than “directors”), as some have worked on things like Neon Genesis Evangelion, various iterations of Gundam, and even Akira. Regardless of their level of experience, they all seem to do a fine job here, even managing a couple of vaguely memorable moments among fairly stock dialogue scenes and effective, if occasionally unoriginal, fights.

The six-stories/one-film concept works well enough on the whole. While these are clearly standalone pieces in terms of style and each telling a complete story, they still work best when viewed together — most follow on from the preceding entry and some elements skip across films. These links are nicely varied. For example, while the end of Film 1 merely leads directly to Film 2, there’s a relatively minor action at the end of Film 3 that is picked up in Film 5, and a large chunk of Film 3 is spent on something seemingly insignificant that is picked up on in Film 6. There are some missed opportunities in this respect, such as the transition from the fourth to fifth entries. It would be neater if Batman’s injury in Film 5 was the one from Film 4; based on the settings and their consecutive sequence, I presume this is what was intended, so it’s a shame the wound’s in a completely different place.

Gotham Knight seems to be squarely aimed at fans — who else could work out that the long-haired mustachioed crime lord here is actually Eric Roberts’ character in The Dark Knight! This is just one of several other factors that seem strange considering Gotham Knight is meant to bridge Nolan’s two live-action Bat-epics: Alfred is the traditional posh Englishman; few/no other characters sound like their Nolan-era counterparts; one segment even features the Burton-style Batmobile! It’s also a shame that the Scarecrow short isn’t last as it would lead even more directly into The Dark Knight. On the other hand, it succeeds in crafting a decent-enough ‘real world’ explanation for Killer Croc, which is no small feat, and Kevin Conroy, now in his mid-50s, still makes a good younger Batman. Thankfully he doesn’t attempt Bale’s over-done Bat-voice, though a nod in that direction might’ve been nice.

I’ve managed to get this far without invoking The Animatrix, unquestionably the forefather of this and other similar projects. Gotham Knight takes the concept a step further by linking its shorts so clearly, and while it’s not wholly satisfying in this respect, it’s a successful enough step in the right direction. If we do get a The Dark Knight 2, I’d be quite happy to see another direct-to-DVD effort in this vein.

Southland Tales (2006)

Posted on October 11, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #63
Richard Kelly | 139 mins | DVD | 15 / R

– confusing mess? or profound experience?

I won’t go into my full “how I discovered Donnie Darko” spiel [save that for whenever I finally watch the Director’s Cut!], but ever since I saw Richard Kelly’s first writing/directing effort way back on its original UK release I’ve been waiting eagerly for his second film. It’s a testament to the negativity of the reviews it received — and, perhaps, the influence of reviews in general — that I skipped Southland Tales at the cinema, left it five months after release before getting it on DVD… and even then it was only a rental.

At some point, Kelly split his story into six parts and, in a Star Wars-like move, the film was to be Parts 4-6, while the first three would be told in accompanying graphic novels. “The film will work fine without reading them,” he said (I paraphrase here), “but reading them will lead to a deeper experience.” Southland Tales: The Movie begins with a long recap of events from these books, going so far as to include images from their art. “Oops”?

You have to wonder, if you switched “Directed by Richard Kelly” for, say, “Directed by David Lynch”, would the critics’ reviews have suddenly jumped up a star or two? [some of it is certainly very Lynchian in feel — not a normal film with bemusing aspects, like Donnie Darko, but an all-out muddled weird-fest]

David Lynch fans may find this more entertaining than most. Or they may hate it for trying to be Lynchian but failing, or perhaps like it as an example of why Lynch is so good and others fail when they attempt similar feats. I don’t know how they’d use it like that, but I expect they would know.

the clear IV, V and VI presented at the start of each chapter — as well as showing I, II and III blatantly on screen during the recap, and having the narration have to recap bits of them — seems to hammer home that this is really for people who are prepared to invest in the whole thing, not people who just watch the film

** raises the question, should you ever have to go further (e.g. reading companion books, comics, websites, etc) to understand a film? Yes and no. If it’s consciously part of a wider ‘experience’, labelled and marketed as such, then why not? But if it’s sold as a film in its own right — or, at least, potentially in its own right (as this was) — then it should really work that way too.

narration: tries to explain everything, though does very little to help (difference between Kelly and someone like Lynch, who just leaves it all up to the viewer?) — at times almost uncomfortably over-explaining — you wish it could’ve been done properly, rather than with narration
Kelly spent months re-editing, following the critical panning it got at Cannes, trimming the length and restructuring it. And it seems to show, as it feels like a failed attempt to construct something legible out of a mess of half-thought-through scenes and subplots
one feels a good director’s commentary and/or the original cut might shed more light on things — this is the sort of film that could benefit from a decent DVD edition, that it probably won’t get due to its lack of popularity… unless it gains surprise critical acceptance years down the line, which isn’t unheard of… though I wouldn’t bank on it here. Perhaps, one day, when we’re all watching Data Crystals, Kelly will have gained enough reputation that a 20th anniversary release will finally explain the damned thing
seems to become clearer toward end — there are some answers, at least — but ultimately a lot is left out
too many of the ‘underlying ideas’ in the climax feel like a Donnie Darko rehash; odd musical numbers and long takes add to this feeling — almost like Kelly’s taken what he did in Darko and tried to expand it into some ensemble epic kinda thing

i thought, with respect to the film’s crazy half-constructed mess of half-ideas, i’d copy&paste my notes rather than a normal review. so at least that’s one answer at the end for you.

when it was originally conceived, it was set a couple of years in the future; now, it’s just set ‘now’; and soon, of course, it will be set in a fictional past — the copyright year on the film is 2005; it’s credited as 2006 on IMDb (which is when it turned up at Cannes); it was finally released in 2007; and it’s set in 2008

I really wanted to like Southland Tales, in spite of the critical mauling it received, and because I loved Donnie Darko and actually enjoyed Domino too (which Kelly wrote). Maybe — maybe — with time to invest in reading the prequel graphic novels, and exploring whatever official sites or crazy fan theories may be out there on the web, I could get more from this film. Personally, I don’t have that kind of time to invest right now, but I might give it a shot sometime. Until then, it will just remain a largely disappointing mess.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405336/faq

this is the way the review ends, not with a bang but with a whimper

Southland Tales featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2008, which can be read in full here.

WALL-E (2008)

Posted on August 8, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #48
Andrew Stanton | 98 mins | cinema | U / G

“Pixar films” seem to have become a bit of a genre unto themselves — yes, they fit into “animation” (always dubious as a genre), “family” (almost as bad), “comedy”, and occasionally a few others, but, much as the Bond films have their own rules and expectations outside the “action” and “spy thriller” conventions, the work of Pixar always achieves special and particular attention. WALL-E subverts some of these expectations (it’s not a buddy comedy, mainly) and has received huge amounts of praise — “consequently”, some might add. It is indeed a very good film, but you’ll surely have heard all that elsewhere; instead, I’m going to draw attention to a couple of things that bothered me.

Most of these issues can be attributed to the fact that WALL-E is a film of two halves. They’re not exactly poorly linked, as elements from each feed into the other, but they are notably different. The first presents a realistically-rendered future Earth, deserted by humans (who are nonetheless represented on hologram screens by live-action actors) and now only inhabited by insects and a trash-collecting robot called WALL-E. Silent but for R2D2-like bleeps, WALL-E quickly endears himself to the audience through his actions. He’s cute, funny and likable, and the early scenes cement him in the audience’s sympathies, which is certainly handy for later. When EVE — a futuristic, iPod-alike ‘female’ robot — turns up, the film becomes a sweet love story, as WALL-E tries to instill the human-like emotions he’s developed into the cold new robot. A very funny and surprisingly touching love story, this is the film’s better half.

The second travels out into space, taking us to meet cartoon humans on a cartoony spaceship. It jars painfully with the realism that pervades the Earth-bound scenes, and the continued use of real actors in holograms highlights the cartoonish style of the future humans. There’s nothing wrong with a cartoon style, I hasten to add — certainly, it works better in films like The Incredibles and Ratatouille than the attempts at realism do in the Toy Story films — but it’s the contrast that’s uncomfortable. The story itself also takes a weak turn here: it becomes a light kiddy-adventure runaround, which is fun and still has flashes of humour and heart, but is nowhere near as daring or as effective as the first half. This is where the sympathies engaged earlier become important, because it’s the audience’s affection for WALL-E that provides most of the genuine quality in this half.

If I were to broadly characterise the two halves, I’d say the first is everything you’d hoped for after the advance hype, while the second is something you could have feared. It’s not bad — it’s still a superior light kiddy-adventure runaround, with exciting-enough sequences and a largely interesting (if unoriginal and preachy) plot — but it’s not as groundbreaking or engaging as the first half. Worst of all is when the cartoon humans land on the realistic Earth, however — it brings to mind films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, where cartoon characters are placed in the real world. In this instance, that’s not a positive comparison.

WALL-E is a good film. The bits that work do so perfectly, keeping the overall quality high, and the weaker sections are ultimately only poor by comparison. If the whole film were like the second half I’d probably merrily accept it as a cartoon runaround but, coming after that beautiful beginning, it only served to gradually erode the fifth star from my rating. It’s a shame, in that respect. On the other hand, this is still one of Pixar’s very best films — I’d certainly rate it above the even-more-over-praised Ratatouille, and probably slot it close behind The Incredibles or Toy Story 2 at the top of the scale. Being pipped by films of that level — and then only just — is nothing to be ashamed of.

I Am Legend: Alternate Theatrical Version (2007/2008)

Posted on July 29, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #47a
Francis Lawrence | 104 mins | Blu-ray | 15

This review contains spoilers.

I only watched the theatrical version of I Am Legend earlier this year (it’s #35), but, for reasons I won’t elaborate on for once, I’ve found myself watching this alternate version already.

Most of the comments in my original review still apply, as this cut only has minimal differences: there are a couple of very short new scenes in the third act, which were presumably excised because they primarily feed into the different ending, the main attraction of this version. Personally, I prefer it. The whole butterfly thing is too God-messagey, recalling the weakest elements of Signs, but if one can put that aside then the new content fits in much better with several threads that develop in the rest of the film (in both versions — in the original cut they’re just ignored). It feels like this was the intended conclusion but, for whatever reason, someone decided it needed changing. Perhaps it wasn’t explosive enough; or, indeed, conclusive enough, as it dispenses with the safe-haven epilogue and its pathetic attempt at justifying the title — another pleasurable loss as far as I’m concerned.

One other element I’ve reconsidered thanks to this repeat viewing are the CGI humans. They’re good enough in and of themselves, and would make more than passable foes in another action film, but here they ruin the ambiance that’s so carefully built up before their first appearance. Yes, the CGI lions are also clearly fake, but with limited methods to create such scenes they seem more acceptable. The arrival of the Dark Seekers, on the other hand, barges the film from thoughtful sci-fi drama into horror action blockbuster stylistically, in a way that using real actors simply wouldn’t. The not-real Dark Seekers may have superhuman jumping abilities, but the film doesn’t need those either, and could easily have crafted a similarly action-packed climax with real performers.

I Am Legend is still as middle-of-the-road as before, with very little to choose between the two versions. However, thanks to a less irritating final few minutes, this version just has the edge — if you ever intend to watch I Am Legend, be it a repeat viewing or your first, I recommend you plump for the alternate cut.

The theatrical version of I Am Legend is on Watch tonight, Tuesday 14th October 2014, at 10pm.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Posted on July 6, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #45
Louis Leterrier | 114 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13

Now here’s something I didn’t think we’d see: a sequel to Ang Lee’s disappointing 2003 version of the Hulk, Marvel’s big green superhero-monster-thing. It’s not precisely a sequel though — for those who’ve somehow missed the behind-the-scenes goings on, this one has an all-new cast and crew, led by Hulk-fan Edward Norton on both leading man and (uncredited) writing duties. But does that mean it’s any better?

I think you’d be hard pushed to deny that this version is more entertaining. From the off it strikes a good balance between plot, character development and action. It doesn’t try to dig as far into the hero’s psychology as Lee’s film, but as that crippled the earlier attempt it’s for the best. Norton is a more appropriate Banner than Eric Bana was, achieving drama, humour and action with aplomb. In fact, even though there’s notably less of it, it seems Leterrier and his cast are as adept at crafting dramatic scenes as Lee and his lot were. They’re certainly better at action sequences, of which there are a good number and all well executed. Attempting an athletic chase over rooftops and through small streets so soon after Casino Royale and The Bourne Ultimatum did similar things to such acclaim seems a bold move, and while Hulk‘s version isn’t as memorable it doesn’t suffer unduly from comparison. The final monster-on-monster punch-up is immeasurably better than the first film’s bizarre climax, but the real stand out for me was the battle on the university campus. All of this is helped by vastly improved CGI. No longer is the Hulk an oversized action figure, but instead has weight and grit, and is altogether more believable. You’re never going to be convinced he’s real, obviously, but this time round they’ve made him more than close enough.

In terms of being a sequel, The Incredible Hulk pretty much has its cake and eats it. It makes good use of all the benefits of being Film 2 — it’s not an origin story, it doesn’t waste too much time introducing the characters — but without a dependence on the poor first film — new actors and a modified origin story distance it, so the main plot grows out of the basic ‘facts’ of Hulk’s origin rather than specific incidences from the first film. In fact, those who were lucky enough not to see Lee’s Hulk may well assume the opening credits’ origin story recap is just a retelling of the first film — and there’s no need to inform them otherwise. As well as dispensing with all the first film’s “evil dad” stuff, the version of the origin story here is apparently highly in debt to the ’70s live action Hulk TV series. In fact, there are also numerous nods and cameos to that version throughout (check out the IMDb trivia page for more).

Considering I did as much for Marvel’s other 2008 blockbuster, Iron Man, I feel I should make some comment on the brief franchise-building coda. Unlike Iron Man, however, Hulk doesn’t bury its scene after 10 minutes of credits, much to my joy. For those who don’t know, the brief scene sees Tony Stark — yes, Iron Man himself, naturally played by Robert Downey Jr — have a brief chat with General Ross about the problem of the Hulk. It’s initially immensely fanboy-pleasing, but is allying such a cool, likable hero as Stark with the despicable General Ross such a good idea? Of course, we’ll find out just what the Marvel planning bods have in mind come 2011.

In the end, this sequel is unquestionably superior to Hulk — who’d’ve thought a near-unknown director, whose major previous credit was the fairly risible Transporter 2, could best Ang Lee? The Incredible Hulk is a good blockbuster in its own right, requiring no need to have suffered the previous film, and there’s even room for a sequel. Now there’s something I didn’t think last time.

The Happening (2008)

Posted on July 1, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #44
M. Night Shyamalan | 90 mins | cinema | 15 / R

This review contains spoilers.

While others have been lamenting the slide in quality of Shyamalan’s work since his breakthrough 1999 hit The Sixth Sense, I’ve been quietly enjoying most of his films since then. I liked Sixth Sense and appreciated its ingenious twist, but it was the fantastic real-world-superhero tale Unbreakable that did the most to cement him in my affections. Signs was another strong effort, an unusual perspective on alien invasion backed by decent family drama and a few good laughs, helped by the always-watchable Joaquin Phoenix and a sweet kid. On the other hand, it suffered from a stretch of a resolution, and that it starred Mel Gibson. His next was the The Village, in my opinion his biggest misfire thanks to a story disappointingly reliant on an easily-guessed twist, further undermined by a third act structure that bent over backwards to hide the reveal for as long as possible. Most reviewers seem to disagree slightly though, as Lady in the Water was widely panned. Personally I liked it, at least on the level at which it was intended, as a modern fairytale.

This, his latest effort, falls mostly in the middle of the road — a bit like a few of its extras, then. You see, the plot concerns the release of a toxin (from where, no one knows) that causes people to begin committing suicide en masse, by jumping off buildings, or shooting themselves, or a variety of other, more gruesome ideas. It’s in these sequences that The Happening is at its best — Shyamalan can still craft chilling scenes and effective jumps, even if their onset is obvious to a moderately seasoned film viewer. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a tad weak. Mark Wahlberg’s performance is flat, John Leguizamo struggles to do much better, and Zooey Deschanel gets by in a kooky role that is by turns endearing and slightly irritating. The script is mostly passable, though occasionally heavy-handed, repetitive and clunky — one moment especially jarred for me, when in a middle-of-nowhere diner it seems one person’s dialogue has been split between two actors.

Shyamalan nicely keeps the cause of the toxin up in the air — though the most probable cause is first suggested fairly early on, other theories continue to float around — but with no last-minute revelation such juggling feels unwarranted. Instead there’s just a “it could happen again” final scene, that might be chilling if it weren’t so predictable. Part of the problem with the film’s central conceit is that it’s not very believable. Now, I know, being able to see dead people, developing superpowers or finding a mermaid-like girl in your pool are hardly realistic plot points either, but here it strays too close to the realm of “I expect you to believe this is possible” pseudoscience and so, unlike Princeton gardeners, my belief struggled to be fully suspended.

Ultimately, I’d rank The Happening as Shyamalan’s worst film to date. While it’s pleasing that he doesn’t force everything to rely on a final twist, the overall quality is variable — at least The Village had something going for it before the poor climax. The cod-science explanation feels like a big excuse for a topical eco-message, otherwise just being a basis to string together a collection of well-executed creepy sequences. Perhaps Shyamalan should stop trying so hard to come up with amazing new ideas and just concentrate on telling a good story. There are things to like though, enough to scrape the film into the middle of the road. Sort of the opposite to those suicidal extras then.

They’ve just watched the film…

Cloverfield (2008)

Posted on June 16, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #40
Matt Reeves | 81 mins | DVD | 15 / PG-13

This review contains major spoilers.

Ah, Cloverfield — probably the most hyped “film no one knew was coming” since The Blair Witch Project, if not even longer, and the most widely-discussed marketing campaign since Snakes on a Plane (all of two years earlier). And then, in what can only be described as a surprise, it got good reviews. Less surprisingly, it did pretty well at the box office. Even less surprisingly, they announced a sequel. So far more Blair Witch than Snakes on a Plane, then. Of course, not all reviews were good, and with all this in mind I finally come to see it myself.

Cloverfield works. It has flaws, but overall it works. The opening 20 minutes set up the characters fairly well, though it does take its time. One would hope the idea is to increase the tension by delaying the monster’s appearance, but I can’t help feeling it’s probably just because they think they’re providing a great emotional background. Those who compare these bits to Hollyoaks clearly haven’t seen that risible C4 pile of tosh — Cloverfield’s performances (largely improvised, at least in the early scenes) and direction are much better than that, even if the plot would probably fit snuggly on the teeny soap. I found the opening held my attention well enough, so one has to wonder about the attention span of those who switched off during it. The characters and their relationships may be archetypes, and consequently rather one-dimensional, but at least they show an attempt to make it more than a Big Monster Go Smashy Smashy movie.

That said, it’s when the monster turns up that things kick off. From then the film does a great job of creating an unrelenting chase/escape, drawing the viewer in with its first-person/eyewitness style. You’re never going to be fooled into thinking it’s a real thing that really happened, obviously, but it comes as close as it’s likely to. This is partly thanks to the camerawork, which I’ll get into later. The deliberate drip-feed of information about the monster is well handled also. Those expecting lots of exposition and answers have clearly come to the wrong film, and should perhaps stick to a more straightforward blockbuster. Those who complain that the monster doesn’t make sense, or the bug-parasite-things that drop off it make even less sense, are clearly missing the point — the characters don’t know what this is or what’s going on, so we don’t either; and it’s a sci-fi movie, so any number of explanations you care to put forward could explain things. There are a couple of misfires in this respect — the military’s willingness to explain their plan is unbelievable, and a shot of the monster towering over Hud is a step too far — but mostly it succeeds.

Talking of Hud, he’s come in for criticism, it seems to me for two main reasons: he’s not a great character, and he can’t hold the camera steady. Have the latter viewers ever watched home movie footage? Cloverfield does a spot-on replication of it, which naturally looks odd if you think of it as ‘professional film’ (where even handheld is only slightly wobbly). I challenge anyone to take a normal home video camera and put it through the same things Hud does and come out with any steadier a shot. Sometimes credibility is pushed by having Hud film other characters instead of the more interesting monster (surely where any normal person would point the camera), but it’s only an occasional and minor point. As for his character, he may be dopey, dull, and occasionally even irritating, but his purpose is to be the cameraman — if he were notably likable or, well, notable then you’d want him in front of the camera too. For the sake of the style, someone has to be behind the camera, and Hud’s a perfect fit. You get so used to him as the almost-unobtrusive cameraman that when he’s killed it’s very nearly an audacious shock, though it’s such an obviously audacious move that it’s predictable to most film-literate viewers.

Unsurprisingly, there’s not a huge deal of originality in Cloverfield. The monster itself may look different to the norm, but it stomps through the streets like Godzilla, the attack of its minions/parasites/whatever in a dark tunnel is a sequence we’ve all seen before (nonetheless, it’s effectively done here), and their chestbursting-like birth is obviously straight out of Alien (even if it’s toned down to a PG-13-friendly silhouette). Even the (in)famous handheld style has, of course, been done before. But in marrying all these elements Cloverfield creates something that feels fresh enough (pasting the first-person/handheld/eyewitness style onto almost any genre would give it a new angle, I’d imagine), and, for the most part, it both entertains and intrigues. It may not be quite Empire’s 5-star wunderkind, but it pushes close.

Cloverfield placed 9th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2008, which can be read in full here.

The Fountain (2006)

Posted on June 8, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #37
Darren Aronofsky | 93 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13

The Fountain was one of the more critically divisive films of recent years, eliciting genuine “love it or hate it” reviews all round. I find myself leaning more towards the former. While I can’t claim to fully understand (let alone explain) much of what it means, and while I usually dislike things that can pretentiously be described as “film as poetry” (or similar), there’s something in the qualities of The Fountain that engaged me.

For one thing it looks gorgeous. While the whole film is beautifully shot, it’s hard not to single out the future segments, in which Aronofsky chose to create space with “micro-photography of chemical reactions” rather than the usual CGI. However it was achieved, the important thing is it looks great. Clint Mansell’s score is equally beautiful, both dramatically exciting and romantically tender — sometimes at the same time. Performance-wise, Hugh Jackman is undoubtedly at the centre and is as likeable as ever. It’s only the present-day segments where he really has much to do, in the arguably-clichéd story of a scientist so desperate to find a cure for his wife’s disease he misses out on spending time with her. Rachel Weisz is good as ever as the wife, even if her American accent is occasionally distracting.

Meanwhile, the past segments are essentially an historical adventure movie with some of the plot scenes cut, and the future segments offer near-2001 levels of silent obscurity. By a similar token, the film has an apparently ambiguous finale that, unusually, I’m quite happy to let wash over me. I’m sure there are multiple conclusions a viewer can reach for what it’s ‘about’ — the eternity of love, the repetition of life, or simply a sci-fi/fantasy quest for immortality — but I find myself happy to accept that it may mean one, all, or none of those things and just leave it be. It’s an odd way to feel at the end of a film — not caring about what it meant, but in a good way.

I can only apologise that, a bit like the film, this review is relatively brief, a tad dreamy, and somewhat inconclusive. I can see why some dislike this film, and I think I’d normally be one of them, but in this case something about it captured me. I look forward to seeing it again and, maybe, getting a better idea what it was.

100Films.co.uk

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

Category Archives: Sci-fi