Peter Hyams | 105 mins | TV | 16:9 | UK / English | 15 / R
I first encountered Outland in a similar context to a lot of people, I think, based on reviews and whatnot I’ve read; that is, as “High Noon in space”. For me it was in a module on Westerns during my Media Studies A-level, in the sense of “what defines a Western?” I subscribe to the notion that a Western has to take place in a certain time and place — because it’s in the name, isn’t it? — so something set in the future on a space station isn’t in the Western genre.
But, having said that, what if it then employs all of the genre’s tropes? With its desert-y settings, horses, stylised dialogue, and more, it’s hard to avoid the Western aspects of Firefly/Serenity; Outland, on the other hand, isn’t so overt. If you’d never seen High Noon, or if no one pointed out the thematic or storytelling similarities, there’s nothing here that would let you in on it (arguably) being a Western. So it’s interesting that it seems to dominate conversation about the film.
Otherwise, it has a lot of science-fiction-y things going for it too. Two years on from Alien, director Peter Hyams has adopted the same grungey, real-world, lived-in aesthetic for the mining outpost setting. It’s a style that doesn’t date (at least, not yet — witness Doctor Who using it multiple times in the past few years, for instance), which means that it doesn’t feel 30 years old. The plot, lifted from High Noon or not, is even more timeless: lone hero stands up to bad guys that no one else is brave enough to confront. 
It works as well in space as it does anywhere else.
Thing is, though it’s well-made and suitably engrossing, the primary unique thing about Outland is that it’s set in space but has so many plot-tropes of the Western. That’s why that dominates the conversation: in many respects, it’s the most interesting thing about the film. A shame though, because I think it could stand without it.
From the co-director of 
There’s a starry voice cast behind the characters, and fortunately they never overwhelm their roles. Which is good, because I’m not really a fan of Will Ferrell and he’s the lead. There’s also the likes of Brad Pitt, Tina Fey, Jonah Hill and Ben Stiller rounding out proceedings — not that it matters because, as I say, the voices fit their roles seamlessly.
Despite that aim, these aren’t glaring holes that desperately need a fix. Rather they’re join-the-dots enterprises; the thing most people won’t have noticed at all, that fans may have wondered about, that it’s more fun to connect up than strictly necessary. It makes this piece resolutely fan-only — while it’s quite good, it’s more admin than a story in its own right, showing how various films connect together in the lead-up to 
It’s a standalone piece, and though it’s brief (under three minutes before the credits role), it still manages to add quite a lot to the character of Agent Coulson, who in the main films to this point has been a minor (albeit increasingly major) supporting role. I suppose it’s fitting that Clark Gregg has been the star of these connecting shorts, as he’s one of the main links across the films (he appears in 
Prequels are far from a new concept (there are examples in ancient Greek literature; the OED dates the first use in print to 1958, though I swear I’ve heard mention of it being used even earlier), but in the past ten years or so they really seem to have come to prevalence in the movies. Perhaps we can trace this phenomenon back to 
The screenwriters in question, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver (also producers), are due a lot of thanks for the quality of the final product. The story — about the son of a lab-tested chimpanzee, raised at home by a US scientist, who ultimately turns on humanity — was inspired by news stories of pet chimps attacking their owners, plus research into genetic modification. By taking these themes and issues and running with them, Jaffa and Silver have crafted a blockbuster that is both plausible and intelligent — a rare thing these days.
As with many prequels, the story itself may seem needless: we know where it ends up, and as various balls are put in play we can see their ultimate destination. But the important thing is that you can’t always see their trajectory, and as someone famous once said, sometimes the pleasure’s in the journey not the destination. Here we become invested in the characters, so we care about what will happen to them in the broader sweep of the Apes story, not to mention the intricacies of how things go from the opening status quo to the conclusion. Plus, with a prequel set so far before the original as this one is, one can always ponder the question of just how far they’ll go in this story (it doesn’t connect up to the start of Planet of the Apes, for instance).
The rest of the cast are adequate but hardly register. James Franco is a solid lead but rarely called on to do much — Caesar is the protagonist, Franco’s human scientist just facilitates that. Frieda Pinto’s role is underwritten. Considering the film barely hits 100 minutes in an era when many blockbusters bloat to 140+, there’s room for her character to get a subplot objecting to the lab treatment of the apes. She’s awfully accepting of Franco’s line of work. As I noted though, perhaps they were trying to avoid being heavy-handed. Overall, John Lithgow is served best, his character slipping in and out of Alzheimer’s as Franco tries to develop a cure. It’s another in a line of recent fine supporting performances from him.
but there’s unquestionably still more that could come. There’s the newly intelligent apes, not yet ruling the planet; but also a mid-credit sequence that continues a significant subplot that’s clearly left hanging, closing the movie with a slight Part One-y tang. Still, I believe that if there wasn’t a sequel coming it would function satisfyingly as a standalone film.
Tony Scott teams up with Denzel Washington for the fifth time to tell the (kinda) true story of a runaway train with the potential to cause massive destruction.
are as stock as they come. Also look out for Kevin Dunn playing the kind of role (condescending middle-management ‘bad guy’) he always plays.
Pixar have always attached original short films to their feature releases. As part of what seems to be their increasing franchisation, however, they’re not always wholly original now: Hawaiian Vacation was the short attached to 
Hawaiian Vacation doesn’t exactly allay these fears — its very existence is proof of that — but at least it’s an entertaining piece in its own right. It succeeds partly by not overreaching itself — this isn’t Toy Story 4 and it doesn’t try to be. It reminds us of the characters and gives them each a story beat, while remaining funny, entertaining and sweet, all in under six minutes. Cars 2 can’t manage that in 106.
There seem to be an increasing number of live-action directors sticking their oar into animated films; and not just lending their ideas and name, as Tim Burton did with 
Indeed, perhaps the most striking thing about Rango is ILM’s hallmark, the extraordinary realism. Though some of the characters are rendered cartoonishly (just look at Rango’s face) and all are of course anthropomorphised, the textures and lighting are as true-to-life as any of their work in live-action movies. They consciously went for a photographic look, as if it had been shot with real cameras, including consultation with Oscar-winning cinematographer Roger Deakins, and it paid off because the whole thing looks incredible. I know I only just recommended it in the last paragraph, but the making-ofs are really great for an insight into why the film looks and feels so different to most current computer-animated films. The sequences of them recording performance reference are incredible — they essentially shot some scenes in full, with the entire cast, in costume, with full props, some sets, blocking, marks, camera angles, improvisation… (The only thing lacking on the Blu-ray is a 
Back to the film itself. I know it’s less interesting, and it is far too slow at the start, but when it eventually gets underway it becomes very entertaining. Somewhere in the middle there’s a five-minute wagon/bat chase that’s a properly exciting action sequence, excellently realised. It was so good I watched it again immediately afterwards. It’s got a clever use of Wagner too, as well as some regular Hans Zimmer action scoring. Zimmer’s score throughout is top quality, referencing Morricone and all the other staples of Westerns.
The plot, however, is clearly borrowed from 
With its detailed references to other films and real-world visual aesthetic, Rango may be more likely to find appreciation among grown-ups than the children who are the typical target for English-language feature animation. Then again, there’s that immature humour I mentioned. A ‘family’ film indeed. Either way, it’s an entertaining addition to — and alternative from — American animation’s usual offerings.
Bad Day at Black Rock comes with an air of the forgotten classic — or, at least, it did to me. I think that’s important to how I ultimately reacted to it. As is that wherever I first heard about it pitched it as a suspenseful mystery with a twist. I forget where that was now, but I remember consciously avoiding finding out the plot’s developments (more so than one naturally would anyway) before viewing.
I missed the commentary. Indeed, in 
For a film so based in mystery and which has what I’d call a methodical pace (despite its short running time), there are surprisingly good action sequences to look out for: a car chase/battle along a thin path, a one-handed punch-up in a bar, and a climactic shoot-out that’s at its most tense once all the bullets have been fired. It’s not an action movie by any means, but these cinematic sequences stand out nonetheless.
It’s important to re-emphasise what I just said: that this Bat-retrospective was provoked by my realisation that I hadn’t watched these films for six years, since a time when Begins was the pretty-successful new kid on the block. To an extent the changed perspective brought about by the events of the last six years (primarily, 
Tim Burton’s first Batman film is great, no doubt, but Returns is a much better film in so many ways. The direction, writing, acting, action and effects are all slicker. They spent over twice as much money on it and it really shows. Plus they have exactly the same running time (to the very minute), but Batman feels surprisingly small scale and Returns feels epic. Watched today, Batman feels Old, whereas Returns… it’s from ’92 so of course it doesn’t feel New — but it feels more like newer films, in a good way.
Four observations I personally hadn’t made before:
Believe it or not, Batman & Robin isn’t a complete disaster. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to mount a defence of the film — it is mostly awful. But only “mostly”.
Chris Nolan’s first foray into Bat-world really is a stunning piece of work in many respects. It’s a film with the confidence in its story to take its time and do things its own way. The first 40 or so minutes jump back and forth constantly between Bruce Wayne’s childhood around the time of his parents’ murder, his college-ish days when he runs away around the world, and his present day training with the League of Shadows. But, as is Nolan’s trademark, this mixed-up chronology is never confusing, never unclear, and always serves a point.
I was, oddly, a little nervous sitting down to watch TDK for the first time in four years. I’d had such an incredible experience viewing it in the cinema (twice) and, by not watching it since, it had built up some kind of aura in my mind. But I dismissed such silliness and damn well got on with it.
Remember when M. Night Shyamalan was the wunderkind of Hollywood? Seems so long ago, doesn’t it? But clearly someone somewhere is still invested in him — or he’s managed to limp on well enough that stuff he works on seems worth a punt — because a couple of years ago he was able to launch a series of films dubbed “The Night Chronicles”. I don’t remember the details and they’re not worth looking up, but as I recall the idea is they were a series of low-key/low-budget horror-thrillers conceived by Shyamalan (he has a Story and Producer credit here) but helmed by others. Devil is the first of these. I don’t recall a second turning up yet.
not the best, but with enough action, intrigue and twists to fill its (admittedly very brief) running time. It comes to a head with a pretty good twist/reveal. Again, it’s kind of ironic that it’s the best twist in a Shyamalan film for years, but it comes in a movie he neither wrote nor directed. Maybe he should take another look at the kind of films he’s choosing to make. (I say “maybe”…)
As an aside, in my occasional run of Comments Paying Too Much Attention To Certificates, it’s funny what Americans allow at what age rating. Here we have neck stabbing, hanging, creepy devil stuff… Seems a bit much for a PG-13, to me. The UK’s 15 is much more appropriate.
100Films.co.uk 