Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

Posted on April 11, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #22
John Carpenter | 96 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / PG-13

Kurt Russell gets embroiled in a fever dream of mystical Chinese tomfoolery in San Francisco’s Chinatown in this cult ’80s adventure from writer/director John Carpenter.

Released as a mildly-edited PG in UK cinemas but afforded a semi-uncut 15 on video, it consequently passed me by in my childhood video rental days, which I think would’ve been the best time to see it. It doesn’t make much sense, it’s scrappy around the edges, but at times it exhibits a kind of loose fun and modest excitement. I can see why it appeals to those who saw it at the right age.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog of reviews, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of a few films. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, 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.

Prometheus (2012)

Posted on March 29, 2013 by badblokebob

With all the furore this week over the (supposed) behind-the-scenes problems with attempts to launch Prometheus 2, it’s about time I posted my review of last year’s intended franchise-starter…

Ridley Scott’s not-an-Alien-prequel-honest Alien prequel is nothing if not divisive, with critics and fans alike declaring it to be a revelatory masterpiece, irredeemable faux-profound slop, and every point on the spectrum in between. I did my best to remain spoiler-free throughout the four months between its theatrical release and disc debut (crikey things reach DVD quickly these days!), though I did read a leaked plot description in advance that was reportedly decried as rubbish. I wish I could remember where I found it because I’d love to know if it matches up. Sadly I can’t remember the details, but obviously something stuck — and therefore it was right — because I was singularly unsurprised by the majority of Prometheus’ story. But that doesn’t necessarily matter if the film is any good, and Prometheus… well…

The first half is quite good, in a slow, meaningful kind of way. Even at that point there’s doubts: some of what occurs is just unnecessary detail; shots and scenes that seem consciously designed to give it a slow pace rather than stuff we actually need to see.

The second half is batshit crazy. It abandons the thoughtful Serious Science Fiction trappings for schlocky body/creature horror, and in the process abandons the semblance of making sense. Plot holes glare at you. Characters make unfounded leaps of logic. It feels like whole scenes or sequences are missing. Indeed, quickly scanning through the disc’s description of some of the deleted scenes, it looks like they might explain some of the film’s gaps. I presume there’s a good reason they were cut though… right…?

And then, to top it off, it doesn’t have a real ending! They may as well slap “to be continued” on screen, such is the obvious lack of conclusion. It’s immensely frustrating, only to be topped off with a “in case we don’t get the sequel” bit of connective tissue to the Alien series. Mysteries and unanswered questions aren’t a problem in and of themselves — there are plenty in Prometheus’ franchise forbears, the first in particular — but they’re not the kind that require answers: their stories work as a discrete unit; who the Space Jockey is, or how the aliens came to be, and so on, are set dressing. Conversely, the gaps in Prometheus are in the primary narrative. There would be an argument for it being a thematic point — a Bergman-esque ‘silence from the Gods’ — but the starkness of that ending, as clear a cliffhanger as either of the first two Lord of the Ringses, undermines that. It fairly screams, “there’s more to come! See the next film for the answers!” And that isn’t on, because that isn’t what we were promised — this isn’t Prometheus: The Fellowship of the Prometheus, with Prometheus: The Two Planets already shot and scheduled for next year, and the trilogy-forming conclusion Prometheus: The Return of the Alien for the year after that; it’s just Prometheus, full stop, the sole definitive article. But it isn’t.

The sense that everything’s been cobbled together in the current blockbuster fashion of “keep writing even while shooting” extends right down to things like character development; even to individual scenes. Take Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), for instance. He’s a dick. I’ve no sympathy when it all goes wrong for him because he’s not at all likeable. What’s somewhat ironic is that the deleted scenes note at least one sequence was re-shot to try to make him more sympathetic. And, funnily enough, I remember during that scene in the film thinking it was about the only time he seemed even vaguely appealing (even then, only relatively). Just one of many such apparently-bungled elements in the film.

No character is fully developed. Some barely register, suggesting too big a cast, while others suffer from being plain stupid, or doing inexplicably stupid things, or just piss-poor acting. There’s some thing made about Shaw (Noomi Rapace) being religious or a true believer or something, but it’s not properly explained and doesn’t go anywhere. David (Michael Fassbender) and the way he’s treated by the other characters are both very interesting areas, and clearly of huge thematic resonance, but he acts inconsistently for no obvious reason, and despite the horrendous things he does to Shaw at one point, she just gets on with him again in the next scene, and… well, that’s far from being the film’s only plot hole or inconsistency.

At one point a character escapes a situation only to be killed off in a different one. If that sounds like a reasonable thing to do, that’s because I’m trying to avoid spoiling parts of the climax. It’s not a particularly reasonable thing to do, though; it plays as “here’s a cool death”. I’ve not read multiple versions of the script or read interviews with the writers or listened to their commentary (yet), but one does wonder if Damon Lindelof was brought in to pull back on some of the Science Fiction (with a capital SF) and build up the blockbuster-y elements, because that’s what said cool death feels like: a film constructed from “what would look cool? What haven’t we seen?” rather than “what are we trying to say?” I have no problem with the former in its rightful place (Tomorrow Never Dies has the awesome bike chase because it was the antithesis of GoldenEye’s tank chase, for one ready example), but a film that sets out its stall around Concepts is not the right place.

The daft thing is, I think a lot of people would’ve been happy if it had chosen to just go all-out as a schlocky alien horror movie. That’s what Alien is: an exceptionally well-made haunted house movie in space. There’s no shame in that (well, maybe in cinéaste circles, but pish.) But that’s not where Prometheus pitches itself. There’s too much other stuff for it to be just that; stuff that’s apparently aiming to be Profound. So when the horror does turn up, it doesn’t belong.

It does all look bloody gorgeous, from the real landscapes to the CGI. It was shot by Dariusz Wolski, whose previous credits include all four Pirateses and not much else that would suggest a remarkable skill. But sod a pixel-generated tiger, these vistas surely deserved recognition. (But then I’ve not seen the tiger movie, so…) I didn’t see it in 3D, obviously, but it certainly looks like it was shot for the format. Not because there’s stuff poking out at you, thank goodness, but look how light it all is, especially compared to the original Alien. I’m sure the scenery had lovely depth.

A side effect of such format-hopping is a debate on the correct aspect ratio: it was reportedly shown at 1.66:1 on IMAX, 2.00:1 on IMAX Digital, and 2.35:1 otherwise (the Blu-ray remains at 2.4:1 throughout). I have no idea whether the IMAX was opened out or cropped, though I’d imagine the former, which does make you ponder why they didn’t just use that everywhere, especially on home formats. I guess 2.4:1 must be Scott’s preferred ratio… but is that OK? Should we lament the missing top and bottom? I dunno. More interested parties than I have debated this at length, if you fancy scouring the web for it.

Prometheus is a funny old beast, then. There’s lots of good stuff in there, but also lots of baffling decisions and confusing shifts of tone, emphasis, style… Considering it was made by an experienced master-filmmaker, who was presumably granted all the time, freedom and money he wanted to craft the film he desired, it’s baffling how it ended up feeling like such a hodge-podge. Many fans have blamed Lindelof, brought in late on to re-write the screenplay; but considering Scott ruined Robin Hood by ditching an innovative, exciting screenplay for a stock this-is-real-history re-telling of the legend, perhaps the blame lies at his door. He’s reached a point where he can order anyone to change anything and it will be done (writers have no power in Hollywood, after all). Perhaps, at 75 now, he’s lost the ability to spot a good script; or perhaps he just tinkers because he feels he must, because he’s the director and he’s in charge.

Whatever. Here he’s turned in a scrappy, confusing, but not meritless movie; one that will probably endure thanks to its franchise connections, its moments of clarity, and its intense controversy. It’s not a good film, but it’s kind of a fascinating one.

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

Posted on March 22, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #31
John Milius | 125 mins* | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

Most films have a reputation of one kind or another, even if it’s only in certain circles and you have to go searching to find it. I suppose Conan’s is best summed up by its status on iCheckMovies: it appears on one official list, the 500 Essential Cult Movies; a list of films so cult-y, I’ve only seen 98 of them. So it’s not a film of great critical acclaim, or box office success; heck, it’s not even on the Empire 500, which surprised me because I’d always thought it was fairly popular — I mean, they bothered to remake it!

You may recall I didn’t care for the remake. Nothing new in that. Unfortunately, I didn’t much care for the original either.

Actually, that’s a mite unfair. I watched the film in two halves, and while the first almost bored me (to be blunt, I fell asleep halfway through; though it wasn’t wholly the film’s fault), the second was more entertaining. The first is episodic, a series of near-disconnected sequences telling Conan’s life story. Towards the middle, the last few of these coalesce into a series of events that drive the film into a proper narrative, which takes us through to the end.

John Milius, directing and co-writing (with, of all people, Oliver Stone), chooses to play much of the film with very little dialogue. It’s a striking effect that often pays off, both creating a sense of an epic story passed down the ages (how often, if someone tells you a tale from myth or legend, is there dialogue?), and minimising the potentially negative effects of his cast. For all his skill as an action man, Arnie is hardly a great actor. The guy doing the voiceover narration is godawful though, and there’s far too much of him. It’s never made clear why he’s the one telling the story either, unless I missed it.

Telling the story visually allows Milius to conjure up some fantastic visuals on occasion. The murder of Conan’s mother is a particularly striking moment, as is the way Conan is aged from preteen moppet to muscly Arnie mere minutes later. A giant temple teeming with disciples offers multiple instances for impressive shots, the huge set and numerous extras creating a sense of scale that CGI will never match. Then there are the action sequences, again somehow heightened without people yelling meaningless nothings at each other. Conan and friends raiding the temple to rescue the princess, and the subsequent graveyard battle, are two particular standouts.

In places the film has aged badly. It looks more ’70s than ’80s, which considering it’s from the start of the decade shouldn’t be a surprise. Not that that’s a problem, just an observation, albeit one that perhaps emphasises age. Much of it looks good, but for every expertly-realised giant snake there’s the two villainous henchman who look like Spinal Tap rejects.

Most of the film is actually a well-realised fantasy landscape (shot in Spain, which I think helps — America always somehow looks like America on screen, whether it’s doubling for a fantasy world or an alien planet or even just another country), but those two kicked me out of it every time they showed up.

My initial assessment of Conan was possibly a bit harsh, born of finding the first half of the film a struggle. The second half, while not perfect, has much more to commend it. The film ends with a “there’s much more story to be told” epilogue (even though the film tells a complete tale in itself — take note, present franchise filmmakers!), which does lead me to want to see the sequel, even if those who love even this hate it. We’ll (and by that obviously I mean “I’ll”) see.

* There are goodness-knows-how-many different versions of Conan. I watched one of them. (I think it was fairly uncut though). ^

Meet the Parents (2000)

Posted on March 21, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #29
Jay Roach | 103 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

Time flies: this is 13 years old! Originally a Jim Carrey vehicle (feels obvious once you know), Ben Stiller is the prospective son-in-law meeting Teri Polo’s parents (Robert De Niro, Blythe Danner) for the first time. Disaster ensues in a riot of unfortunate events targeting our hapless hero.

Some may find it too cruel, but there’s a requisite soppy ending… though I can’t be alone wishing Stiller abandoned Polo and her awkward family. De Niro almost steals the film as the over-protective father; the (in)famous lie detector scene is fine, but a Ronin-spoofing traffic-light-halted car race is the real highlight.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog of reviews, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of a few films. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, 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.

The Raven (2012)

Posted on March 18, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #30
James McTeigue | 106 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA, Hungary & Spain / English | 15 / R

John Cusack stars as literary giant (figuratively) Edgar Allan Poe in this wannabe-Victorian-Se7en from the director of V for Vendetta.

Set in the days leading up to Poe’s death (a period in the author’s life which is apparently shrouded in mystery), the film sees a serial killer recreating horrendous scenes from Poe’s tales, leading the police to rope in the author in the hope he can help solve the case. A game develops between the killer and the writer, as they race against time to stop more deaths and all that palaver.

Dark and gruesome with the killer having a clear line to follow in his murders? Wannabe Se7en, see. Unfortunately, it doesn’t follow up on that notion too well. Screenwriters Hannah Shakespeare (helluva name to live up to) and Ben Livingston don’t seem to know what to do with Poe’s tales, so there’s no rhyme nor reason to the killings — they’re plucked at random, possibly from the killer’s most favouritest stories, possibly just the ones someone thought would be the most cinematic. And whereas Se7en’s gore is shocking because it’s used sparingly, is kind of plausible, and is set very much in the real world, here we get a kind of gothic horror feel, complete with copious CGI blood at points.

That said, I got the feeling that The Raven is sort of an R by default. (Note that it received a 15 over here, which is also the stomping ground of harder-edged PG-13s.) There’s gore and the odd swear word, but none of it is lingered on. Most of the obvious blood ‘n’ guts is constrained to one scene, and I believe I counted the PG-13’s requisite single use of the F-word. That they didn’t tone it all down just a smidge to match, and so go for the box office-friendly PG-13, is a surprise in these days.

Setting aside comparisons to Fincher’s masterpiece, I’ve read that one critic described The Raven as “Saw meets Sherlock Holmes”. Obviously I maintain that my allusion is better, but I can see where they’re coming from. However, apart from one murder inspired by The Pit and the Pendulum and someone being (temporarily) buried alive, it’s not that Saw-like; and it lacks the humour or action of Ritchie’s Holmes, or the deductive reasoning of any version. But, y’know, aside from that… Additionally, the climax is somewhat reminiscent of A Study in Pink. Might be coincidence, but on the other hand that episode did go out nearly two years before this was released…

I don’t know how historically accurate this tale is, but I imagine not very — I expect we’d know if Poe had been involved in a headline-making murder investigation that led to his death. But that’s fine — it’s the embodiment of the notion that a fiction film is an entertainment, not a history lesson. As for the author’s characterisation, I don’t know much about Poe, but can’t imagine Cusack is an accurate interpretation. He’s solid as this interpretation, though: a charming, roguish figure, living hand-to-mouth through his fondness for alcohol and dramatic wooing of a woman whose father hates him.

The rest of the cast are from Hollywood’s usual go-to for period tales: Brits; if not entirely then mostly so. (The film was shot in Hungary and Serbia, so I suppose our thesps have the additional advantage of being geographically favourable to Americans.) You know you’re getting a level of quality there, then, though for me Kevin R. McNally lets the side down (again). He’s only a supporting character and is fine most of the time, but there’s one bit when he’s talking to the lead detective and just rattles off his line… It’s not the world’s greatest speech, but you can hear there was meant to be more nuance and quiet in there.

That could be the fault of the director, of course. A first assistant director for the Wachowskis in the days of The Matrix trilogy, James McTeigue graduated to feature directing with the adaptation of V for Vendetta, which I think is a very good film. He followed it with Ninja Assassin, which by all accounts is dreadful (I have, by one way or another, wound up with the BD, so someday I’ll find out). I think The Raven suggests his first film may have been fluke, or was at least aided by his mentors (who were also writers and producers on V). The actual direction-y directing here is mostly fine, although on the whole the film is too dark; sometimes literally too dark to see what’s going on, and that’s not aided by occasionally clunky editing.

I’ve not even mentioned the inappropriately modern title sequence (doubly bad as it comes after a rather sombre ending), or that the neat use of a raven in the film’s logo on the poster remains the entire project’s strongest aspect.

Se7en is probably my favourite film ever made, but criticisms that it’s quite a standard detective mystery are not invalid. It’s enlivened by Andrew Kevin Walker’s writing (great dialogue, engrossing structure, etc), some top-drawer performances (Freeman, Pitt, a loopy-calm Spacey), and, probably most of all, David Fincher’s inestimable touch. In making such a comparison it’s easy to see that The Raven lacks any of these, which renders it a solid period mystery, but no more.

The Raven is on Sky Movies Premiere at various times this week.

Johnny English Reborn (2011)

Posted on March 3, 2013 by badblokebob

From the director of Oscar Wilde adaptation An Ideal Husband, Oscar Wilde adaptation The Importance of Being Earnest, and Oscar Wilde adaptation Dorian Gray — plus the surely-of-comparable-quality St. Trinian’s and St. Trinian’s 2 — comes this belated sequel no one asked for.

I found the first Johnny English film to be passingly enjoyable, but as I settled down to watch this one I realised I could barely remember a thing about it. That doesn’t matter though, because — as the “Reborn” tag might imply — this one basically starts over. Following an incident in Mozambique, English (Rowan Atkinson) has been retired to a Tibetan monastery (at which point your cliché alarm may start flaring. Try to ignore it because it’s not going to find anything in the film to stop it), but is called back to active service when a CIA agent will speak only to him about a plot to assassinate the Chinese PM.

Perhaps the best word to describe Johnny English Reborn would be “sedate”. Even the action sequences, of which there are a couple, can’t muster much speed, let alone jeopardy. Two of them are very nearly inspired: a Casino Royale-derived parkour chase, in which English uses his intelligence to find more practical ways around obstacles — but which has the side effect of sucking any dynamism out of the action; and a chase through the streets of London, with English in a souped-up wheelchair — but which feels like some sporadic bursts of concepts rather than a fully-conceived sequence.

Humour comes in dribs and drabs, most of it eliciting a chuckle at best. At worst, it’s blatantly borrowed from somewhere else: the monastery opening (a dozen Rambo III spoofs), punching a misidentified disguised woman (Austin Powers), fighting himself when under mind control (I can’t even think of a specific example it feels so familiar), and more. It’s all very gentle and old-fashioned, but without the wit or class those kinds of comedies can deliver at their best.

Plus, as with so many British films, you can have fun playing Spot The Cast Member. Famous names abound, with one or two recognisable faces cropping up in tiny parts too. Apparently Ben Miller, English’s sidekick from the original adverts and first movie, filmed a cameo that was ultimately cut. A lot of people seem moderately upset about that on forums. I like Miller, but to be honest I’d forgotten he was in the first one.

Having resurrected Bean out of the blue in the late ’00s, and English out of the blue in the early ’10s, I can only assume later this decade Atkinson will attempt to trot out Blackadder for a belated last hurrah. Or maybe Richard Curtis will stop him. Or more likely turn it into a polemic about Africa. While Reborn is fine, it doesn’t instil the notion that we should be looking forward to any more such resurrections.

The Falcon’s Brother (1942)

Posted on February 28, 2013 by badblokebob

2012 #71
Stanley Logan | 60 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

The Falcon may’ve done it in the third entry in RKO’s Saint-a-like film series, but now it was time for Tom Conway to take over — as the series’ star, that is.

Leaving my contrived and slightly embarrassing introductions aside, Conway gets a pretty good introduction to what will soon be his franchise. Though we begin with George Sanders still the lead, learning that his brother has been murdered on a ship arriving in New York — only to find out the body isn’t his brother after all — there’s a speedy and smooth transition to Conway being in charge.

Quite why they felt the need to execute such a neat transition, when previously films of this calibre had been happy to just re-cast (see: the Saint), I don’t know, but it works in its favour. Behind the scenes, Sanders had grown tired of B-movie leads, but presumably the series was successful enough at this point that RKO didn’t want to abandon it — especially as they were in the process of losing the Saint. In a piece of too-perfect casting, Conway is his real-life brother. On-screen and in-story, the passing of the baton is so smoothly done you barely even notice it happening, and it gives Conway an unencumbered chance to establish himself… though he’s basically the same character. Whether he’ll have the same gurning lack of success with the dames remains to be seen, however.

Aside from housekeeping, the film offers one of the series’ better plots, a proper detective mystery that doesn’t lead where you’d expect it to for once. That said, I didn’t like the ending so much, especially the way it abruptly dispatches our former hero followed by the gang carrying on with barely a care. The Mysterious Threatening Voice On The Phone is interesting though — will we be seeing a recurring enemy; a Moriarty or Blofeld for the new Falcon? Time shall tell…

Apart from the dual leads, Don Barclay’s Lefty is basically a re-cast Goldy — he even has the same police-bating catchphrase. Why Allen Jenkins left/was got rid of, I don’t know, but that’s the kind of thing that happens in movies of this scale I suppose. A quick flick through IMDb reveals the Goldy will return later, but Jenkins won’t, which is a minor shame. Broadly similarly, making Jane Randolph’s female lead, Marcia Brooks, a journalist also smacks of why-isn’t-it-just-the-one-from-the-last-film-ness. She’ll be back in the next film and then gone again, perhaps continuing the almost-tradition the films are establishing for a girl relay? (I should really stop theorising mid-flow; but then, we are wont to see connections where there are none.)

The bumbling cops are also present and correct, not that I care for them. Their “because I’m the boss” shtick is one of the elements that makes the Falcon films feel more formulaic than the Saint ones, in spite of all the other factors (changing sources of adaptation; changing leads) that should make them feel wildly varied. And the Falcon’s butler, Jerry, is Asian again, after being caucasian in the last two films. Played this time by Keye Luke, rather than being some nasty stereotype he has a nice bit using stereotypes to the characters’ advantage. It’s one of the series’ better comic inventions.

Re-casting your lead can be a major stumbling block for a series, or lead it to even greater success. Normally it’s done abruptly, but the Falcon takes a more transitionary route… and, perhaps surprisingly, it pays off with a mostly fun adventure. And with Conway now in charge, perhaps the series can shake off the lingering Saint on its shoulder.

* As with the vast majority of the Falcon series, The Falcon’s Brother hasn’t been passed by the BBFC since its original release. Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

Iron Sky (2012)

Posted on February 26, 2013 by badblokebob

Period sci-fi comedy/action/adventure Iron Sky is the 21st century answer to Snakes on a Plane: the worldwide internet geek community got hold of the idea/trailer for a film about Nazis on the moon coming back to Earth, and somehow pushed the concept into being via crowdfunding and a general sense of “doesn’t that sound cool?” Then, again like Snakes on a Plane, no one seemed to actually like it.

Well, I’m going to be a bit of a dissenting voice, because I thought Iron Sky was quite fun. It’s by no means perfect, with some clunky dialogue, weak acting, blatant virtual sets, thuddingly obvious satire, and so on (for more crushing criticism, see the ghost of 82’s review)… but, equally, it’s a low-budget SF comedy — you have to admire some of its ambition.

If you take the rotten dialogue and variable performances to be part of the intentional humour (and, in some cases, I think it is), then they’re less objectionable. The CGI is no worse than we’ve seen in some major productions down the years (for various reasons it brought to mind Sky Captain). Its attacks on a Palin-esque US President are remarkably untimely now she seems to have been ignored even in her own country, but at least it does place the US and their foreign policy attitudes in its sights — the advantage of it being a foreign production, because I’m sure if it was US-made they’d be the gung-ho spotless heroes defeating that Natzees for a second time.

Throw in a moderately witty spoof of the Downfall-based Hitler YouTube meme, and moderately audacious elements like the Nazis turning a black astronaut white as part of their new attitude to racial purity, and you have a film that is moderately successful on its own terms.

It’s brain-in-neutral entertainment, certainly, but there are worse examples of that. Snakes on a Plane, for instance. And if you really need convincing, just imagine how Michael Bay would’ve treated this concept: exactly the same, but without the awareness of it all being silly.

The Plank (1967)

Posted on February 20, 2013 by badblokebob

2012 #97
Eric Sykes | 51 mins | TV | 1.66:1 | UK / English | U

A near-silent slapstick comedy starring Tommy Cooper and Eric Sykes, I’d never heard of The Plank until MovieMail highlighted it in a recent catalogue — I swear they gave it a fairly thorough write-up and called it a “must see” (or words to that effect), but I can’t find it now… Weird. (Incidentally, if you don’t get the MovieMail catalogue, you really should — it’s the best free film magazine I know, and probably bests a fair few purchasable ones too.) Anyway, after remembering MovieMail said it was a must see (even if they didn’t), Channel 5 helpfully put it on late one night over Christmas. So I watched it.

The film opens with the credits being sung to the viewer — a surreal touch that indicates the kind of experience you’re in for. The humour, as noted, is primarily of a slapstick variety, much of it unsurprisingly revolving around the titular slab of wood. Some of it is very amusing, but it really only works for people who like that kind of humour. That might sound self evident, but I mean I can’t see this as a film that will convert anybody. At times it coasts a little too; perhaps too much for such a short running time.

There’s actually a surprising amount of dialogue, considering I’ve seen it several times cited as being a silent comedy. The vast majority is inconsequential and there’s no significant humour there, which does render it an almost pointless inclusion — why not go the whole hog and make it dialogue-free? But then, this isn’t The Artist, so why not have chatter?

Also worthy of note are the supporting roles, featuring numerous comedy stars, many with names still recognised today: Roy Castle, Jimmy Tarbuck, Hattie Jacques, Bill Oddie… Can’t say I spotted them all in the film, but they must be there somewhere.

Some people seem to adore The Plank, and I’m glad for them that it’s made its way to DVD. It’s certainly a left-field kind of movie, very ’60s, and while I only really enjoyed it in parts, it’s the kind of thing I appreciate having seen. Well done, MovieMail.

Scre4m (2011)

Posted on February 5, 2013 by badblokebob

aka Scream 4

I had heard Scre4m (Scream 4, if you prefer) was dreadful; a misguided, belated attempt to revive a once-popular franchise. Personally, I thought it was fun.

Set ten years after the trilogy-closing Scream 3, the new movie wisely kicks off in years-later-sequel mode, re-introducing us to the (surviving) old characters and setting up a selection of new ones ready to be sliced ‘n’ diced. Unlike some subsequent horror franchises, Scream was never about inventive deaths, so the focus on character and storyline (relatively, at least) makes for a welcome change of pace from gore-riddled modern US horror movies.

One of the hallmarks of the original films, as I’m sure you’ll recall, is that they featured characters who were very aware of the rules of the horror movie. It played on these mercilessly, said characters employing knowledge of decades’ worth of horror films and horror sequels in order to (try to) survive. That’s not gone in Scre4m, which sets its sights on the US horror predilections that have followed since; mainly remakes and reboots. Sadly, there’s probably more on-the-nose dialogue-y exposition-y stuff about the poor quality and predictability of remakes than actually integrating such criticism into the film itself; but then again the parallels to the original Scream are there for those who care to look.

It also leads to quite a good extended bit where some characters reel off a list of recent remakes, which rather highlights just how far it’s gone now. There’s lots of examples of this fun ‘meta’ stuff for film fans; for real-world-stuff too, including references to Courtney Cox and David Arquette’s marriage, Emma Roberts being in the shadow of Julia Roberts, and so on.

In a nod to the rise of ‘torture porn’ films, Scre4m frequently reminds us that the rules have changed. I think what it really proves is there are no rules any more. Which on the one hand is fine — filmmakers have spent decades trying to subvert our expectations and surprise us in the horror genre — but on the other means the intelligent viewer can never be surprised, because every possibility is racing through our mind. Which, again, is fine — that’s the point: like every kind of murder mystery from Agatha Christie on, half the game is guessing the killer. And if you want to get suckered in to the jump scares, or think it through so thoroughly you remain ahead of them, that’s fine too. I think that’s one of the reasons horror movies have always appealed so much to teens: they’re still naive enough, unfamiliar with the rules of film enough, to get caught out by those things; whereas an older, seasoned viewer can see them coming.

But, ultimately, all the discussion of horror movies and their rules is just window dressing: if there aren’t rules any more (which there don’t seem to be), it’s impossible for the characters to use them to survive, or for it to lend much self-reflexive weight to how the killer behaves. The only moment when it might be of use is when they predict the climax will occur at a party, and it turns out they’re having a party that very night! But then they go ahead with anyway. So much for that then.

Like so much of the film, Marco Beltrami’s score is amusingly overblown. He makes it sound like something terrifying is happening when someone sits in broad daylight typing “I don’t know what to write” on their computer. I had similar thoughts on bits of the acting, the murders, and so on — there’s an element of a wink and a nudge, of deliberately hamming it up. I think that some would see this as a lack of skill in the acting/writing/directing departments, but I think it’s a choice. Or I choose to think it’s a choice, take your pick. Arguably the resultant mix works as well as a comedy as it does a horror movie. This, I think, is part of why the Scary Movie movies are so reviled — they simply take the piss out of something that is, to one degree or another, already taking the piss.

In many respects, Scre4m is kind of old school. It fits better in the era of the original trilogy and/or earlier horror films than with the development of the genre in the intervening decade. Though as the main development has been torture porn, and it criticises that explicitly from the very first scene, perhaps that’s still OK. In fact, they’re one step ahead again, with a nod to the most most-recent development (the Paranormal Activity-led “found footage” boom), which actually plays a more central role than the torture porn stuff.

It’s fair to say that a chunk of nostalgia for the originals colours my liking of Scre4m. Perhaps it plays best to those who saw the first three at the right age, i.e. mid-to-late teens or so. I shouldn’t think it would engage a new audience all that much, especially ones versed in the gorier Saw and Final Destination franchises. But for those of us with fond memories (to one degree or another) of the first three films, it’s kind of a nice little revisit.

100Films.co.uk

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

Category Archives: 3 stars