The case for and against Unstoppable. Let’s hear the prosecution make the case against.
Zero character/character development.
Direlogue.
The usual clichés (Everyman saves the day, the suits in charge care only about the money etc etc etc)
Zero story.
Logic be damned. (“Inspired by true events” apparently and I would imagine the key word there is “inspired.”)
And the defence.
A one million tonne runaway train. Let me repeat that. A one million tonne runaway train.
Large popcorn and coke. (I’d love to tell you I was hungry or I needed it, I’d even love to tell you it was comfort food. It was none of the above. This film required, nae DEMANDED a large popcorn and a large coke.)
Denzel Washington running across the top of the train manually slamming on the brakes carriage by carriage. Let me repeat that. Denzel Washington running across the top of the train manually slamming on the brakes carriage by carriage.
The “Stanton Curve.” (“It’s going too fast!!! It’s gonna fly off the tracks!!!”)
90 minute running time.
The defence rests.
And indeed, the defence wins. Every fibre in my being is screaming at me that this film is rubbish but damn it if I wasn’t on the edge of my seat falling for it hook, line and sinker. It’s 2012 all over again except that this one wraps itself up in 90 minutes. This is Tony Scott’s most fun film in years, which in reality isn’t saying much, but it’s loud, silly, exciting, doesn’t outstay its welcome and ends up being a lot of fun. One particular shot contains two trains, two helicopters, a fleet of cars and a guy hanging in mid air! It's vehicular porn of the most gratuitous kind and you'll never watch the film again but it really is a blast. What's also nice is that the train has weight and feels "real" with CGI apparently used sparingly and to enhance rather than create from scratch. Denzel and Chris Pine rise above their backstories and trite characters and the final moment of the film is brilliantly bad.
Maybe I was just in the mood or looking forward to the weekend… Or maybe sometimes all you need is a runaway train.
7/10
Friday 26 November 2010
Thursday 25 November 2010
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 1 Review
Deathly dull.
It’s 2 ½ hours of exposition and wandering around forests. Voldemort as played by Ralph Feinnes continues to impress, the sets are amazing, the cast a who’s who of British talent but it’s scene after interminable scene of expository “And it was Clarence Wigglebump who gave the Menageriegoop to Felicity Witherbottom” type dialogue. In forests. For 2 ½ hours.
Breaking into the Ministry Of Magic and an animated story within the story near the end are probably the high points of the film, Harry’s dance with Hermione the low point. Clearly there is respect for the world and characters JK Rowling has created but this is in part the problem for me; slavishly adapting the books results in incredibly sluggish films, and, for all the talk of doom and gloom and sense of foreboding in the tone of the film, there is remarkably little urgency to the proceedings. I really didn’t feel any threat whatsoever and the sub-Lord Of The Rings style attempt to make the horcrux physically impact upon Harry, Hermione and Ron is very unconvincing and leads to a laughably bad moment where, for no reason I could discern other than it was a moment of contrived, cheap drama, Ron fights with Harry and disappears for a while. Only to re-appear a little while later and then just carry on.
I so wish I cared about Harry Potter. It’s clearly the most significant moment in pop culture in a very long time. If you think about it, it’s difficult to remember life without Hogwarts and Dumbledore and Voldemort and the other weird and wonderful creations in Rowling’s universe. But these films are 2 hours of nothing with a flurry of activity at the end and Deathly Hallows Part 1 is the most dull of all.
Still, the knitwear is good though.
3.5/10
It’s 2 ½ hours of exposition and wandering around forests. Voldemort as played by Ralph Feinnes continues to impress, the sets are amazing, the cast a who’s who of British talent but it’s scene after interminable scene of expository “And it was Clarence Wigglebump who gave the Menageriegoop to Felicity Witherbottom” type dialogue. In forests. For 2 ½ hours.
Breaking into the Ministry Of Magic and an animated story within the story near the end are probably the high points of the film, Harry’s dance with Hermione the low point. Clearly there is respect for the world and characters JK Rowling has created but this is in part the problem for me; slavishly adapting the books results in incredibly sluggish films, and, for all the talk of doom and gloom and sense of foreboding in the tone of the film, there is remarkably little urgency to the proceedings. I really didn’t feel any threat whatsoever and the sub-Lord Of The Rings style attempt to make the horcrux physically impact upon Harry, Hermione and Ron is very unconvincing and leads to a laughably bad moment where, for no reason I could discern other than it was a moment of contrived, cheap drama, Ron fights with Harry and disappears for a while. Only to re-appear a little while later and then just carry on.
I so wish I cared about Harry Potter. It’s clearly the most significant moment in pop culture in a very long time. If you think about it, it’s difficult to remember life without Hogwarts and Dumbledore and Voldemort and the other weird and wonderful creations in Rowling’s universe. But these films are 2 hours of nothing with a flurry of activity at the end and Deathly Hallows Part 1 is the most dull of all.
Still, the knitwear is good though.
3.5/10
Wednesday 10 November 2010
Let Me In Review
It’s such a strange thing. Let Me In arrives as the American remake of Let The Right One In, barely two years after the original film was released. Director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) clearly has great respect for the original version but that respect results in him following the original almost to the letter and so his remake struggles to assert its own identity or justify its own existence in any meaningful way. So far so predictable. But Let Me In turns out to be a very good film, way better than expected, and what’s interesting is that, those moments where Reeves dares to be different, to add his own touches or moments, the film really flies. This makes you wonder what might the film have been if he had had the courage to go his own way even further.
If you’ve seen Let The Right One In then story wise you’re in for no surprises. Owen (The Road’s Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a lonely outsider, bullied at school, harbouring revenge fantasies against his bullies, and living with his recently separated (and, in this version, highly religious) Mother. Into his apartment block moves Abby (Hit Girl herself, Chloe Grace Moretz) and her apparent Father (the always excellent Richard Jenkins). Chloe is, of course, a vampire and Jenkins is her helper, going out at night to kill for blood to keep her alive. The story progresses, sometimes scene for scene, as the original film and we watch Owen experience his first love, the relationship between he and Abby being the focus of the film and that which drives it towards its fantastic last act.
One of the best things in the original film was the performances and Moretz and Smit-McPhee are both excellent in the remake. There is a palpable sadness in both children, both for very different reasons of course, and this lingers over the whole film. Reeves makes the choice to remove some elements and, for the most part, they are not missed. The now infamous “cat scene” is mercifully gone. What might just be the most famous shot from the first film is also missing. You’ll know it when you don’t see it. Owen’s Mother always appears out of focus or out of frame and it’s a visually interesting touch that underscores the nature of that relationship. The most successful changes are small moments that deserve to be seen without being spoiled beforehand, though I will say that a failed attempt by Richard Jenkins to capture a victim for Abby to feed on results in a sequence arguably more tense than anything in the original. Not all the changes work, CGI Abby being the worst offender, and its similarity to the original means the whole “what’s the point” question looms large over its entire running time. Most of the last act is completely intact, including the most famous scene, and the impact is diminished by virtue of it being so similar.
Ultimately Let Me In is a good film, atmospheric, deliberately paced, well acted and well written and directed and, as such, deserves to be seen. Would it have been like that without the first film? Even though both are based on a book, you still get the feeling that the original film was the bigger influence on Reeves’ remake and so therefore the answer is no. At the end of the day you should see Let The Right One In. But if you simply don’t do subtitles, then Let Me In is a more than adequate substitute.
7/10
If you’ve seen Let The Right One In then story wise you’re in for no surprises. Owen (The Road’s Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a lonely outsider, bullied at school, harbouring revenge fantasies against his bullies, and living with his recently separated (and, in this version, highly religious) Mother. Into his apartment block moves Abby (Hit Girl herself, Chloe Grace Moretz) and her apparent Father (the always excellent Richard Jenkins). Chloe is, of course, a vampire and Jenkins is her helper, going out at night to kill for blood to keep her alive. The story progresses, sometimes scene for scene, as the original film and we watch Owen experience his first love, the relationship between he and Abby being the focus of the film and that which drives it towards its fantastic last act.
One of the best things in the original film was the performances and Moretz and Smit-McPhee are both excellent in the remake. There is a palpable sadness in both children, both for very different reasons of course, and this lingers over the whole film. Reeves makes the choice to remove some elements and, for the most part, they are not missed. The now infamous “cat scene” is mercifully gone. What might just be the most famous shot from the first film is also missing. You’ll know it when you don’t see it. Owen’s Mother always appears out of focus or out of frame and it’s a visually interesting touch that underscores the nature of that relationship. The most successful changes are small moments that deserve to be seen without being spoiled beforehand, though I will say that a failed attempt by Richard Jenkins to capture a victim for Abby to feed on results in a sequence arguably more tense than anything in the original. Not all the changes work, CGI Abby being the worst offender, and its similarity to the original means the whole “what’s the point” question looms large over its entire running time. Most of the last act is completely intact, including the most famous scene, and the impact is diminished by virtue of it being so similar.
Ultimately Let Me In is a good film, atmospheric, deliberately paced, well acted and well written and directed and, as such, deserves to be seen. Would it have been like that without the first film? Even though both are based on a book, you still get the feeling that the original film was the bigger influence on Reeves’ remake and so therefore the answer is no. At the end of the day you should see Let The Right One In. But if you simply don’t do subtitles, then Let Me In is a more than adequate substitute.
7/10
Friday 5 November 2010
Frightfest Halloween Special
Last Saturday I went to the Frightfest Halloween all night horror movie marathon at the Empire Leicester Square. It started at 6.00pm Saturday evening and the last film of the night was scheduled to start at 6.00am Sunday morning. We were in it for the long haul! As it happened technical difficulties prevented two of the films from being shown and they moved the last film of the night up to fifth place. Which was absolutely fine by my flatmate and I because by this time we were flagging and the last film, the Finnish film Rare Exports, was the main reason for wanting to go. In the end we skipped an earlier film to get some food so we ended up seeing four films, all of which are apparently going to be released in the New Year, so here’s a quick rundown of the night.
CONFESSIONS.
First up was a Japanese film called Confessions. A teacher, whose daughter died, comes into her class and announces that the verdict of accidental death was incorrect and that her daughter’s death was in fact murder. Not only that but the killers are two of her pupils. This was all I knew going in to the film and I thought that was a cracking premise. What ends up happening is that the film becomes a series of confessions, first the teacher, then one of the boys, then a friend etc etc. It’s a tough film to describe as it sounds like a variation of the Rashoman type, “multiple perspectives on the truth” type of film which isn’t really the case. Each of the person’s stories reveals a little more of the main plot and one or two concern themselves with subplots. In the end the film is less a horror film and more of a revenge thriller as the teacher exacts punishment on those responsible for her daughter’s death.
Confessions wasn’t terrible, it was very well made, stylishly shot and edited, but it didn’t really amount to very much for me. There are good moments, funny moments too, and, as with much of Japanese cinema, you never really trust the tone to remain consistent. The actual revenge as it plays out is quite convoluted and at well over two hours, my patience ended up being stretched. It was an okay start to the night as I was up for whatever was to come and it certainly got us in the mood for the remaining screenings As a film in itself it’s just about worth a look but I certainly won’t return to it.
ALTITUDE
Fucking hell…
The guys running the night introduced it by saying there would be a mixture of light and dark. Altitude was meant to represent the light and I assume its inclusion in the programme was tongue in cheek. The problem was that, while there were a few “so bad it’s genius” moments, they were too few to push the film as a whole into that territory. Also, dreadful acting aside, those moments mainly occurred in the last half hour making the first fifty minutes (the film was mercifully short) pretty much interminable.
A group of teeth-wrenchingly grating American kids (the jock, the sensitive one blah blah blah) charter a plane to fly to a rock concert. The pilot doesn’t look old enough to drive a car never mind fly a plane, but assuming she is of legal age to command a plane, I wouldn’t trust her to choose my McDonalds let alone fly me anywhere. Anyway our vacuous heroes take off and hit rough weather. Weather that is so rough in fact that, in one truly hilarious sequence, it necessitates one of the group being tied to a rope and hung outside the plane so as to manually fix the wing, or some shit. Seeing a young man hung from the back of a moving plane at 15,000 feet is pretty amazing. Anyway it’s during this sequence that they catch their first glimpse of the monster in the sky. That’s right folks, the monster in the sky. Shall I just tell you where this is all going? Yeah what the hell, skip if you’re afraid of spoilers. But really don’t be afraid of spoilers.
One of the group is a comic book nerd. He has a comic with him that is all about… are you ready… A MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!!!! What is happening is that his fears manifest in the real world and he uses comics for inspiration as to what form they should take. It’s creature from the Id stuff but really terrible. He is in love with the pilot but she doesn’t love him and he’s afraid of… well, that I think. The climax comes when everyone else is dead and it’s just the two of them in the plane and they figure all this out. The clouds are jet black, they haven’t seen the ground in hours, there’s a MONSTER IN THE SKY!!! And then she leans over and kisses him! And the clouds vanish and the monster disappears because he’s not afraid anymore!!! Genius. But then, he realises that… SHE DIDN’T MEAN THE KISS!!!!! And the sky blackens and the clouds return and, oh my God, there’s the MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!! This time the monster reaches out one of its tentacles and pulls the pilot out of the plane!! But she manages to grab the window and hang on for dear life. Now, clinging to the front of a plane, with A 500 foot tentacle wrapped around her, she proceeds to deliver a speech about how he can’t be afraid anymore and how he must face his fears if he is to have a life!!! It’s absolutely inspired in all kinds of ways and almost, almost, makes the film worth watching. But not quite. There’s also some rubbish about a childhood incident that comes back on itself…YAAAAAWN.
Altitude is rubbish. Even with a MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!
THE SILENT HOUSE
This was one of the films I was really looking forward to seeing. It went down really well at Cannes, a fortune was spent on acquiring it and it’s set to receive a large distribution next year. It’s a haunted house movie from Uruguay but its main selling point is that it was shot in one continuous take on a digital camera. At 79 minutes long, this is an incredible feat and it adds massive amounts of tension as it becomes a real time film and you feel completely trapped with the protagonist in this creepy as hell abandoned house.
I SO want to give the film a glowing review. This is everything I love in horror films, things happening off camera, sounds from elsewhere in the house, psychological scares, little girl ghosts… it’s all there! When the film is good it’s absolutely brilliant, incredibly effective, tense, creepy and downright scary. But it frustratingly drops the ball in a way I won’t reveal so as not to influence expectations. It’s such a shame because this could have been one of the great horror films and at points it is. But as much if not more than the horror, I remember the disappointments. Interestingly, the crowd didn’t really seem into it. And I overheard many people walk out saying they had seen it all before and it was nothing new. With a film like this though, it’s less about originality necessarily and more about the execution and the one take approach, far from being a gimmick, adds a level of horror that is really palpable. From a technical perspective it is also incredibly impressive but that never overshadows the atmosphere and tone. Also, there are many genuinely creepy and unnerving moments outside of the one take approach hat linger in the memory. It’s a massive, massive shame that it just can’t sustain the level it often reaches for its whole running time.
RARE EXPORTS
What a weird little film! This was one that really could have gone either way judging from the trailer. But I’m really happy to report that it’s a lot of fun. An entrepreneur uses an excavation crew to blast a hole in a Finnish mountain in search of Santa Claus. Yep, Santa. But this isn’t our benevolent, Coca Cola Santa. This is weird, creepy Santa who kidnaps children and puts them in a giant sack for God knows what kinds of nefarious purposes.
I’m actually not going to say too much about Rare Exports because it really is well worth seeing as fresh as possible. The script takes the concept and pushes it to create many great little moments. The setting is fantastic, the acting excellent and perhaps most importantly, the tone of the film is absolutely spot on. It could have completely trivialised its concept but instead manages to be fun, funny, warm and take the idea seriously enough so that we laugh with it rather than at it and are genuinely affected by its unnerving, creepy moments. It’s never downright scary as such, creepy and unnerving are the best words to use. Though those moments of that old man glaring at our little protagonist really do unsettle. This is a genuine original and, like the other films screened, will apparently receive a general release so do go see it.
And that was Frightfest! A lot of fun and a couple of good films thrown in for good measure.
MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!!!!
CONFESSIONS.
First up was a Japanese film called Confessions. A teacher, whose daughter died, comes into her class and announces that the verdict of accidental death was incorrect and that her daughter’s death was in fact murder. Not only that but the killers are two of her pupils. This was all I knew going in to the film and I thought that was a cracking premise. What ends up happening is that the film becomes a series of confessions, first the teacher, then one of the boys, then a friend etc etc. It’s a tough film to describe as it sounds like a variation of the Rashoman type, “multiple perspectives on the truth” type of film which isn’t really the case. Each of the person’s stories reveals a little more of the main plot and one or two concern themselves with subplots. In the end the film is less a horror film and more of a revenge thriller as the teacher exacts punishment on those responsible for her daughter’s death.
Confessions wasn’t terrible, it was very well made, stylishly shot and edited, but it didn’t really amount to very much for me. There are good moments, funny moments too, and, as with much of Japanese cinema, you never really trust the tone to remain consistent. The actual revenge as it plays out is quite convoluted and at well over two hours, my patience ended up being stretched. It was an okay start to the night as I was up for whatever was to come and it certainly got us in the mood for the remaining screenings As a film in itself it’s just about worth a look but I certainly won’t return to it.
ALTITUDE
Fucking hell…
The guys running the night introduced it by saying there would be a mixture of light and dark. Altitude was meant to represent the light and I assume its inclusion in the programme was tongue in cheek. The problem was that, while there were a few “so bad it’s genius” moments, they were too few to push the film as a whole into that territory. Also, dreadful acting aside, those moments mainly occurred in the last half hour making the first fifty minutes (the film was mercifully short) pretty much interminable.
A group of teeth-wrenchingly grating American kids (the jock, the sensitive one blah blah blah) charter a plane to fly to a rock concert. The pilot doesn’t look old enough to drive a car never mind fly a plane, but assuming she is of legal age to command a plane, I wouldn’t trust her to choose my McDonalds let alone fly me anywhere. Anyway our vacuous heroes take off and hit rough weather. Weather that is so rough in fact that, in one truly hilarious sequence, it necessitates one of the group being tied to a rope and hung outside the plane so as to manually fix the wing, or some shit. Seeing a young man hung from the back of a moving plane at 15,000 feet is pretty amazing. Anyway it’s during this sequence that they catch their first glimpse of the monster in the sky. That’s right folks, the monster in the sky. Shall I just tell you where this is all going? Yeah what the hell, skip if you’re afraid of spoilers. But really don’t be afraid of spoilers.
One of the group is a comic book nerd. He has a comic with him that is all about… are you ready… A MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!!!! What is happening is that his fears manifest in the real world and he uses comics for inspiration as to what form they should take. It’s creature from the Id stuff but really terrible. He is in love with the pilot but she doesn’t love him and he’s afraid of… well, that I think. The climax comes when everyone else is dead and it’s just the two of them in the plane and they figure all this out. The clouds are jet black, they haven’t seen the ground in hours, there’s a MONSTER IN THE SKY!!! And then she leans over and kisses him! And the clouds vanish and the monster disappears because he’s not afraid anymore!!! Genius. But then, he realises that… SHE DIDN’T MEAN THE KISS!!!!! And the sky blackens and the clouds return and, oh my God, there’s the MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!! This time the monster reaches out one of its tentacles and pulls the pilot out of the plane!! But she manages to grab the window and hang on for dear life. Now, clinging to the front of a plane, with A 500 foot tentacle wrapped around her, she proceeds to deliver a speech about how he can’t be afraid anymore and how he must face his fears if he is to have a life!!! It’s absolutely inspired in all kinds of ways and almost, almost, makes the film worth watching. But not quite. There’s also some rubbish about a childhood incident that comes back on itself…YAAAAAWN.
Altitude is rubbish. Even with a MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!
THE SILENT HOUSE
This was one of the films I was really looking forward to seeing. It went down really well at Cannes, a fortune was spent on acquiring it and it’s set to receive a large distribution next year. It’s a haunted house movie from Uruguay but its main selling point is that it was shot in one continuous take on a digital camera. At 79 minutes long, this is an incredible feat and it adds massive amounts of tension as it becomes a real time film and you feel completely trapped with the protagonist in this creepy as hell abandoned house.
I SO want to give the film a glowing review. This is everything I love in horror films, things happening off camera, sounds from elsewhere in the house, psychological scares, little girl ghosts… it’s all there! When the film is good it’s absolutely brilliant, incredibly effective, tense, creepy and downright scary. But it frustratingly drops the ball in a way I won’t reveal so as not to influence expectations. It’s such a shame because this could have been one of the great horror films and at points it is. But as much if not more than the horror, I remember the disappointments. Interestingly, the crowd didn’t really seem into it. And I overheard many people walk out saying they had seen it all before and it was nothing new. With a film like this though, it’s less about originality necessarily and more about the execution and the one take approach, far from being a gimmick, adds a level of horror that is really palpable. From a technical perspective it is also incredibly impressive but that never overshadows the atmosphere and tone. Also, there are many genuinely creepy and unnerving moments outside of the one take approach hat linger in the memory. It’s a massive, massive shame that it just can’t sustain the level it often reaches for its whole running time.
RARE EXPORTS
What a weird little film! This was one that really could have gone either way judging from the trailer. But I’m really happy to report that it’s a lot of fun. An entrepreneur uses an excavation crew to blast a hole in a Finnish mountain in search of Santa Claus. Yep, Santa. But this isn’t our benevolent, Coca Cola Santa. This is weird, creepy Santa who kidnaps children and puts them in a giant sack for God knows what kinds of nefarious purposes.
I’m actually not going to say too much about Rare Exports because it really is well worth seeing as fresh as possible. The script takes the concept and pushes it to create many great little moments. The setting is fantastic, the acting excellent and perhaps most importantly, the tone of the film is absolutely spot on. It could have completely trivialised its concept but instead manages to be fun, funny, warm and take the idea seriously enough so that we laugh with it rather than at it and are genuinely affected by its unnerving, creepy moments. It’s never downright scary as such, creepy and unnerving are the best words to use. Though those moments of that old man glaring at our little protagonist really do unsettle. This is a genuine original and, like the other films screened, will apparently receive a general release so do go see it.
And that was Frightfest! A lot of fun and a couple of good films thrown in for good measure.
MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!!!!
Wednesday 27 October 2010
Paranormal Activity 2 Review
This is a strange one...
I sat in the cinema falling for it hook, line and sinker. I've read some reviews subsequent to seeing it that have decimated it and in the cold light of day I completely empathise. But I sat in the cinema tense and scared and unwilling to watch the screen.
The story and set up are basically the same as the first film. Weird things happening in a house, CCTV, locked off night shots, weird things caught on camera starting small and escalating to the finale. The events of this film are linked to those of the first in a way I have to say I quite liked. This time around the paranormal activity centres around a little toddler which is another idea I really liked. The baby is scared but doesn't know why. Or he isn't scared because he's too young to understand what is happening but we are scared for him. Pots fall, footsteps approach, walls are banged and the "dragging out of bed" scene from the first film is reprised but in a bigger way this time around as the sequel, whilst still being really small budget, nevertheless cost slightly more than the paltry $15,000 of the first. Make no mistake, this is the same film all over again and, loss of originality aside, if you enjoyed the first, I don't see why you wouldn't enjoy the second.
I re-read my review of the first film and I was full of praise for it, apart from the let-down ending, a problem that reoccurs in the sequel. What's interesting is that I haven't gone back to it as there simply isn't much story to tell. It's a one trick film that pulls off its trick very well. The sequel is exactly the same way and I can't imagine returning to it any time soon. I was scared in the cinema because ghost stories scare me and this is well done. Add to that a couple of good ideas and the film is definitely worth a look. Judging by the box office, I'm sure Paramount are already hard at work on Paranormal Activity 3. This could become their Saw franchise. Quite how far and for how long you can spin out films like this I don't know. But then this is Hollywood. And I'm sure there are plenty more characters who will place CCTV in their homes to capture their personal paranormal activity.
6/10
I sat in the cinema falling for it hook, line and sinker. I've read some reviews subsequent to seeing it that have decimated it and in the cold light of day I completely empathise. But I sat in the cinema tense and scared and unwilling to watch the screen.
The story and set up are basically the same as the first film. Weird things happening in a house, CCTV, locked off night shots, weird things caught on camera starting small and escalating to the finale. The events of this film are linked to those of the first in a way I have to say I quite liked. This time around the paranormal activity centres around a little toddler which is another idea I really liked. The baby is scared but doesn't know why. Or he isn't scared because he's too young to understand what is happening but we are scared for him. Pots fall, footsteps approach, walls are banged and the "dragging out of bed" scene from the first film is reprised but in a bigger way this time around as the sequel, whilst still being really small budget, nevertheless cost slightly more than the paltry $15,000 of the first. Make no mistake, this is the same film all over again and, loss of originality aside, if you enjoyed the first, I don't see why you wouldn't enjoy the second.
I re-read my review of the first film and I was full of praise for it, apart from the let-down ending, a problem that reoccurs in the sequel. What's interesting is that I haven't gone back to it as there simply isn't much story to tell. It's a one trick film that pulls off its trick very well. The sequel is exactly the same way and I can't imagine returning to it any time soon. I was scared in the cinema because ghost stories scare me and this is well done. Add to that a couple of good ideas and the film is definitely worth a look. Judging by the box office, I'm sure Paramount are already hard at work on Paranormal Activity 3. This could become their Saw franchise. Quite how far and for how long you can spin out films like this I don't know. But then this is Hollywood. And I'm sure there are plenty more characters who will place CCTV in their homes to capture their personal paranormal activity.
6/10
RED (Retired & Extremely Dangerous) Review
Not the worst film ever but I started forgetting scenes almost as soon as they finished. The story isn't interesting and the action is fairly pedestrian. Sure it's nice to see older actors getting to kick ass but there is literally nothing else to the film.
Redundant & Extremely Derivative.
4/10
Redundant & Extremely Derivative.
4/10
Friday 22 October 2010
The Social Network Review
Every time a film comes out that purports to be “based on a true story” (or more worryingly, “inspired by true events” by which you can interpret “bearing zero relation to anything that has ever happened. Anywhere. Ever”) out come the sayers of nae protesting as to the factual inaccuracy of the project. This didn’t happen this way, that didn’t happen that way blah blah blah. Unless the errors are particularly egregious (“Hey, have you seen that new movie about 9/11? It’s great, the planes miss the buildings.”) I usually have little time for these complaints. Timelines are ALWAYS truncated in films, characters merged for the sake of dramatic expedience and events changed for dramatic purposes. Nine times out of ten, the film makers know what they are doing and the changes made are necessary to tell the story for the cinema. David Fincher is a director renowned for meticulous attention to detail so the idea that he has got as much of the story of the founding of Facebook wrong as is being claimed is surprising to say the least. Yet it does seem to be the case. The thing is, The Social Network is a really good film, intelligent, gripping, funny, superbly written, directed and acted. So what impact do these alleged inaccuracies have on one’s enjoyment of it? For me, pretty much none. Colour me callous!
Jessie Eisenberg is Mark Zuckerberg, a computer genius studying at Harvard who finds himself ostracised from the University’s most prestigious private clubs, clubs that he thinks hold the key to his future. Zuckerberg, at least the Zuckerberg depicted here, is abrupt, difficult and in no way constrained by society’s norms and conventions. He is also conniving and manipulative. The fact that the real Mark Zuckerberg declined to be involved isn’t massively surprising… Anyway two twin brothers, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, come to Zuckerberg with an idea for a Harvard based social networking website. Zuckerberg sees something in their idea and, also taking the opportunity to stick it to the kinds of people who have excluded him up to now, strings them along while he takes the best of what their concept has to offer and creates what would eventually become Facebook. His only friend Eduardo (new Spider-Man Andrew Garfield) becomes the fledgling company’s business manager but as Zuckerberg is wowed by Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) Eduardo finds himself increasingly sidelined and, in the end, utterly shafted by his friend and he, along with everyone else, attempts to sue Zuckerberg for their piece of the pie.
The film depicts the depositions given by everyone involved in the two lawsuits and we flash back and forth between their testimony and the events being described in the past. This lends the film a great ambiguity as we only ever receive subjective accounts of events from the Winklevoss brothers, Eduardo or Zuckerberg himself and can believe or disbelieve things as we see fit. This is something of a get out of jail free card but the exact events are completely shrouded in mystery so it makes sense that writer Aaron Sorkin (working from the novel The Accidental Millionaires by Ben Mezrich) should structure the film this way. But Sorkin and Fincher have taken the subject of the founding of Facebook and used it as a springboard for the things that interest them, the nature of the creative process, the implications of sites like Facebook and their notion of who the film’s central character is. There is always that nagging feeling that much of how Zuckerberg is depicted isn’t true such as his ineptitude with women for example; he apparently had a girlfriend at the time. This is no small thing when the final moments of the film tie this character beat into the story to wrap everything up. Don’t misunderstand, it’s a great moment and a great ending, but some may struggle to find its dramatic satisfaction in the midst of factual inaccuracies. Sorkin’s trademark snappy dialogue is present and accounted for but, one or two clunky moments aside (Zuckerberg moves to L.A. and happily ends up on the same street as Justin Timberlake. Seriously? The same street? That’s like in Star Trek movies where the character beams down to a planet the size of Pluto but happen to land in the exact spot where another character lives) it’s a fantastic script. David Fincher remains one of the most interesting directors working in Hollywood and with this and Zodiac, the demonic Benjamin Button has now been completely exorcised. The cast is uniformly excellent with Jesse Eisenberg finding great humour and surprising moments of pathos in the inscrutable Zuckerberg.
The Social Network is a great film, a fascinating story very well told. The biggest problem with it being factually inaccurate is that the story is so recent, beginning as it did merely seven years ago. What isn't in doubt is that something unsavoury happened and Zuckerberg was slap bang in the middle of it. My suspicion is that, while the actual events depicted may be incorrect or even made up, the point they are making is pretty close to the truth, or at least, the truth the film makers believe to be the case. A subjective point of view is the best thing a writer or director can offer a film and this should be true of so called true stories as it is of works of fiction. And ultimately the truth is always subjective anyway. Two people can offer "the truth" of a situation and end up giving wildly differing accounts which is, in part, what The Social Network is about. At the end of the day intelligent, thoughtful, gripping films are very thin on the ground and, if it’s literal truth you want, the cinema never has been and never should be the place to seek it out. Cinema is about drama. And The Social Network has that in spades.
8/10.
Jessie Eisenberg is Mark Zuckerberg, a computer genius studying at Harvard who finds himself ostracised from the University’s most prestigious private clubs, clubs that he thinks hold the key to his future. Zuckerberg, at least the Zuckerberg depicted here, is abrupt, difficult and in no way constrained by society’s norms and conventions. He is also conniving and manipulative. The fact that the real Mark Zuckerberg declined to be involved isn’t massively surprising… Anyway two twin brothers, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, come to Zuckerberg with an idea for a Harvard based social networking website. Zuckerberg sees something in their idea and, also taking the opportunity to stick it to the kinds of people who have excluded him up to now, strings them along while he takes the best of what their concept has to offer and creates what would eventually become Facebook. His only friend Eduardo (new Spider-Man Andrew Garfield) becomes the fledgling company’s business manager but as Zuckerberg is wowed by Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) Eduardo finds himself increasingly sidelined and, in the end, utterly shafted by his friend and he, along with everyone else, attempts to sue Zuckerberg for their piece of the pie.
The film depicts the depositions given by everyone involved in the two lawsuits and we flash back and forth between their testimony and the events being described in the past. This lends the film a great ambiguity as we only ever receive subjective accounts of events from the Winklevoss brothers, Eduardo or Zuckerberg himself and can believe or disbelieve things as we see fit. This is something of a get out of jail free card but the exact events are completely shrouded in mystery so it makes sense that writer Aaron Sorkin (working from the novel The Accidental Millionaires by Ben Mezrich) should structure the film this way. But Sorkin and Fincher have taken the subject of the founding of Facebook and used it as a springboard for the things that interest them, the nature of the creative process, the implications of sites like Facebook and their notion of who the film’s central character is. There is always that nagging feeling that much of how Zuckerberg is depicted isn’t true such as his ineptitude with women for example; he apparently had a girlfriend at the time. This is no small thing when the final moments of the film tie this character beat into the story to wrap everything up. Don’t misunderstand, it’s a great moment and a great ending, but some may struggle to find its dramatic satisfaction in the midst of factual inaccuracies. Sorkin’s trademark snappy dialogue is present and accounted for but, one or two clunky moments aside (Zuckerberg moves to L.A. and happily ends up on the same street as Justin Timberlake. Seriously? The same street? That’s like in Star Trek movies where the character beams down to a planet the size of Pluto but happen to land in the exact spot where another character lives) it’s a fantastic script. David Fincher remains one of the most interesting directors working in Hollywood and with this and Zodiac, the demonic Benjamin Button has now been completely exorcised. The cast is uniformly excellent with Jesse Eisenberg finding great humour and surprising moments of pathos in the inscrutable Zuckerberg.
The Social Network is a great film, a fascinating story very well told. The biggest problem with it being factually inaccurate is that the story is so recent, beginning as it did merely seven years ago. What isn't in doubt is that something unsavoury happened and Zuckerberg was slap bang in the middle of it. My suspicion is that, while the actual events depicted may be incorrect or even made up, the point they are making is pretty close to the truth, or at least, the truth the film makers believe to be the case. A subjective point of view is the best thing a writer or director can offer a film and this should be true of so called true stories as it is of works of fiction. And ultimately the truth is always subjective anyway. Two people can offer "the truth" of a situation and end up giving wildly differing accounts which is, in part, what The Social Network is about. At the end of the day intelligent, thoughtful, gripping films are very thin on the ground and, if it’s literal truth you want, the cinema never has been and never should be the place to seek it out. Cinema is about drama. And The Social Network has that in spades.
8/10.
Tuesday 19 October 2010
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps Review
Money, apparently, never sleeps. So my suggestion is that it watches Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps and that should send it off into a nice, restful slumber.
I remember when I first watched the trailers thinking, I have no idea what the story of this film is and my suspicion was that the film didn't either. That suspicion was confirmed upon watching it. The return of a much loved character (either hero or, in this case, villain) is not enough to hang an entire film on, as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull demonstrated in 2008. (There is no fourth film) Also, if you want to examine real world events in the light of the original film then great, but make the decision to do that. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps doesn't know if it's a character drama, examination of the financial crisis, corporate thriller or family drama. It mainly opts for the last one in scene after turgid scene of the most drama free drama I've seen in a long time.
I'm not a massive Oliver Stone fan, even his best films hit you with all the subtlety of a kick to the balls. But his earlier films contain passion, anger, outrage and conviction in abundance and there is simply no way around it, he has lost his bite. W, World Trade Centre (I'm not spelling it "er") the catastrophic Alexander and now Wall Street, these are films lacking any of the urgency of, say, Platoon, Born On The Fourth Of July, JFK or Nixon. Even if you think any or all of those films are misguided, at the very least they are about something; they have something to say. The best thing you can say about Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is that it's nice to see Michael Douglas onscreen again, even if his screen time is way too limited. In the end the film is just soul-crushingly, stupifyingly dull.
2/10
I remember when I first watched the trailers thinking, I have no idea what the story of this film is and my suspicion was that the film didn't either. That suspicion was confirmed upon watching it. The return of a much loved character (either hero or, in this case, villain) is not enough to hang an entire film on, as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull demonstrated in 2008. (There is no fourth film) Also, if you want to examine real world events in the light of the original film then great, but make the decision to do that. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps doesn't know if it's a character drama, examination of the financial crisis, corporate thriller or family drama. It mainly opts for the last one in scene after turgid scene of the most drama free drama I've seen in a long time.
I'm not a massive Oliver Stone fan, even his best films hit you with all the subtlety of a kick to the balls. But his earlier films contain passion, anger, outrage and conviction in abundance and there is simply no way around it, he has lost his bite. W, World Trade Centre (I'm not spelling it "er") the catastrophic Alexander and now Wall Street, these are films lacking any of the urgency of, say, Platoon, Born On The Fourth Of July, JFK or Nixon. Even if you think any or all of those films are misguided, at the very least they are about something; they have something to say. The best thing you can say about Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is that it's nice to see Michael Douglas onscreen again, even if his screen time is way too limited. In the end the film is just soul-crushingly, stupifyingly dull.
2/10
Thursday 7 October 2010
Buried Review
Like Phone Booth and, to a lesser extent, Panic Room before it, Buried is a thriller that belongs in the somewhat gimmicky sub-category of thriller in a confined setting. Buried is surely the pinnacle of the genre as the whole film occurs in a coffin. 90 minutes in a coffin is a tough ask for a film and, to its credit, Buried pulls it off but to very little consequence.
Ryan Reynolds plays Paul Conroy, a truck driver working in Iraq whose convoy is ambushed and who wakes up, well, buried. He is six feet under in a wooden box with a mobile phone, lighter, fluorescent lights and his anti anxiety tablets. As he tries to desperately contact the outside world the “why” of his situation slowly comes together. Sand, snakes and assorted unhelpful people on the other end of the line work desperately to maintain the tension as his situation worsens and time begins to run out for Paul.
Director Rodrigo Cortes works his socks off trying to keep the film visually interesting. Setting a film entirely in a coffin is an interesting experiment but could have been a total chore to sit through and it’s to Cortes’ credit that it isn’t. But I couldn’t have cared less about the character and there really was no tension in the film at all, even as the script kept piling on the twists and turns and obstacles for Conroy to overcome. One can only imagine the panic one would experience in real life waking up in that situation, but as Paul uses his mobile phone to create a way out for himself, he ends up screaming at people in scenes that venture way too close to repetition for comfort. It’s not Reynolds’ fault as he really does sell the situation and its desperation in what one imagines must have been a bitch of a shoot. It’s the script that lets everyone down as it makes Conroy yell and shout and generally fail to convey the gravity of his situation. It’s not all bad, one or two moments work reasonably well, the idea that, even buried in a coffin, the biggest hurdle you face is being put on hold is well done and creates surprising levity. But it's not really enough and I never once experienced the kind of claustrophobia the film wanted me to.
Buried is worth watching, if only as a curiosity. But I was never tense and never really cared. The biggest thing I took from it was that it is actually possible to make a film set in a coffin visually interesting. Kudos for that I guess.
5.5/10
Ryan Reynolds plays Paul Conroy, a truck driver working in Iraq whose convoy is ambushed and who wakes up, well, buried. He is six feet under in a wooden box with a mobile phone, lighter, fluorescent lights and his anti anxiety tablets. As he tries to desperately contact the outside world the “why” of his situation slowly comes together. Sand, snakes and assorted unhelpful people on the other end of the line work desperately to maintain the tension as his situation worsens and time begins to run out for Paul.
Director Rodrigo Cortes works his socks off trying to keep the film visually interesting. Setting a film entirely in a coffin is an interesting experiment but could have been a total chore to sit through and it’s to Cortes’ credit that it isn’t. But I couldn’t have cared less about the character and there really was no tension in the film at all, even as the script kept piling on the twists and turns and obstacles for Conroy to overcome. One can only imagine the panic one would experience in real life waking up in that situation, but as Paul uses his mobile phone to create a way out for himself, he ends up screaming at people in scenes that venture way too close to repetition for comfort. It’s not Reynolds’ fault as he really does sell the situation and its desperation in what one imagines must have been a bitch of a shoot. It’s the script that lets everyone down as it makes Conroy yell and shout and generally fail to convey the gravity of his situation. It’s not all bad, one or two moments work reasonably well, the idea that, even buried in a coffin, the biggest hurdle you face is being put on hold is well done and creates surprising levity. But it's not really enough and I never once experienced the kind of claustrophobia the film wanted me to.
Buried is worth watching, if only as a curiosity. But I was never tense and never really cared. The biggest thing I took from it was that it is actually possible to make a film set in a coffin visually interesting. Kudos for that I guess.
5.5/10
World's Greatest Dad Review
This just in! Robin Williams is credible again!
World’s Greatest Dad is a pitch black comedy that barely puts a foot wrong. It boasts a great script by writer/director Bobcat Goldthwait (Zed from the Police Academy films, he of the “funny” voice), restrained direction and a great central performance from Williams. Seriously, Police Academy’s Zed directing Patch Adams in a good film?!? Has the world gone mad?!?
Williams plays teacher and failed writer Lance Clayton. Lance is also father to his sex obsessed, crude, misogynistic, life-hating and generally stupid son Kyle with whom he repeatedly and abortively tries to bond. When Kyle accidentally kills himself by auto-erotic asphyxiation, Lance alters the scene to make it look like suicide. He fakes a suicide note that ends up going around the school and profoundly affecting students and teachers alike and suddenly Lance’s writing has gained the audience he has always wanted… Things escalate from there as Lance descends deeper and deeper into his lie and Kyle ends up with a legacy that is hilariously flawed and unearned.
What’s great about World’s Greatest Dad is its willingness to follow through on where its concept can take it, the script absolutely unafraid to explore its central character’s manipulation and cashing in of his son’s death. The film takes its time getting to Kyle’s death and you watch Lance get trod on by his son, his son’s only friend, girlfriend, fellow teachers and principal of the school in which he teaches. He never complains, even as he knows people are taking the piss. This means that, as you watch him capitalise on the faked suicide, you’re still on his side. He has never complained, he’s basically a good guy, his son was a total nightmare, why shouldn’t he go out for himself? Williams is completely game, matching the script’s desire to push boundaries. People’s reactions to the death are dealt with mercilessly, from the students in search of meaning, to the principal conveniently forgetting he wanted to put Kyle in a special needs school, to the Oprah-like talk show host offering her viewers a heart rending story, everyone is a target of Goldthwaite’s razor sharp satire. Running jokes are pushed to the max but never stretched to breaking point, the Bruce Hornsby running joke in particular paying off in one of the film’s funniest moments.
World’s Greatest Dad is that rarest of film, one that has the courage of its convictions. It’s out on limited release but it really is worth catching, if only as a reminder that, with the right material, Robin Williams is a great comedy actor.
“Thank you Bruce Hornsby” might just be the best line of the year so far.
8/10
World’s Greatest Dad is a pitch black comedy that barely puts a foot wrong. It boasts a great script by writer/director Bobcat Goldthwait (Zed from the Police Academy films, he of the “funny” voice), restrained direction and a great central performance from Williams. Seriously, Police Academy’s Zed directing Patch Adams in a good film?!? Has the world gone mad?!?
Williams plays teacher and failed writer Lance Clayton. Lance is also father to his sex obsessed, crude, misogynistic, life-hating and generally stupid son Kyle with whom he repeatedly and abortively tries to bond. When Kyle accidentally kills himself by auto-erotic asphyxiation, Lance alters the scene to make it look like suicide. He fakes a suicide note that ends up going around the school and profoundly affecting students and teachers alike and suddenly Lance’s writing has gained the audience he has always wanted… Things escalate from there as Lance descends deeper and deeper into his lie and Kyle ends up with a legacy that is hilariously flawed and unearned.
What’s great about World’s Greatest Dad is its willingness to follow through on where its concept can take it, the script absolutely unafraid to explore its central character’s manipulation and cashing in of his son’s death. The film takes its time getting to Kyle’s death and you watch Lance get trod on by his son, his son’s only friend, girlfriend, fellow teachers and principal of the school in which he teaches. He never complains, even as he knows people are taking the piss. This means that, as you watch him capitalise on the faked suicide, you’re still on his side. He has never complained, he’s basically a good guy, his son was a total nightmare, why shouldn’t he go out for himself? Williams is completely game, matching the script’s desire to push boundaries. People’s reactions to the death are dealt with mercilessly, from the students in search of meaning, to the principal conveniently forgetting he wanted to put Kyle in a special needs school, to the Oprah-like talk show host offering her viewers a heart rending story, everyone is a target of Goldthwaite’s razor sharp satire. Running jokes are pushed to the max but never stretched to breaking point, the Bruce Hornsby running joke in particular paying off in one of the film’s funniest moments.
World’s Greatest Dad is that rarest of film, one that has the courage of its convictions. It’s out on limited release but it really is worth catching, if only as a reminder that, with the right material, Robin Williams is a great comedy actor.
“Thank you Bruce Hornsby” might just be the best line of the year so far.
8/10
Thursday 30 September 2010
The Town Review
I think we have a new movie cliché. Along with the “hit man called out for one last job” film or the “clean cut cop paired with a manic cop” film, or the “ugly duckling turns into beautiful swan” film (usually by letting her hair down and taking off her glasses) surely we must now add “crime thriller set in Boston” film? Why is every American crime thriller currently set in Boston? The ridiculous accents, Red Sox Hoodies, chats about “the neighbourhood” these are now clichés every bit as tiresome as any other. Welcome to The Town. What’s frustrating is that the film is very well made, very well directed by Ben Affleck and it’s to his credit that he is able to take material this familiar, this well worn, and elevate it into something watchable. With a good script I have no doubt Affleck will direct a really great film. But this isn’t it.
The Town isn’t bad per se, it’s just so painfully unoriginal. Doug MacRay (Affleck) heads a team of bank robbers in Charlestown (or “Chaaaaaaalsetaaaaaan” in Boston vernacular) who, on one particular job, kidnap bank manager Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall) but let her go unharmed. Upon discovering that she actually lives right in their neighbourhood and they will probably see her every day, Affleck sets about ingratiating himself into her life to find out what she knows about the gang. Can you see where this is going? Of course you can. As they fall in love, FBI Agent John Hamm (still managing to be dapper in that effortless Don Draper way even with three day stubble and shoddy FBI clothes) is hot on their heels, knowing who the gang is and slowly gathering evidence to put them away for good. Present and accounted for are the best friend, the unhinged James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), the local crime lord (unlikely Pete Postlethwaite with an awesome Northern Irish accent) the Dad behind bars (Chris Cooper) and the drugged up skank causing problems for Affleck. (Blake Lively.) Is “drugged up skank” a politically correct term? Not sure. Anyway, boxes are ticked, scenes arrive with total predictability, the films goes exactly where you expect it to at every point and then it ends.
I’m coming down pretty hard on The Town and, in truth, because I like these kinds of films I was happy to watch it. The hook is that, an enormous percentage of all bank robberies committed in America occur in this small area of Charlestown. But while that's an interesting fact, it doesn't impact the story or the film in any meaningful way. Affleck wants out of the neighbourhood and his world of crime but so has every other protagonist in this kind of film before him. The "why" of it doesn't really matter. As I said above, the fact that it’s as well made as it is only serves to remind that we have been in this territory many, many times before. The various set pieces, opening bank robbery, a car chase through narrow streets and the climactic gun fight, are very well handled, Affleck and his always brilliant director of photograpy Robert Elswitt finding interesting angles to shoot the action from and allowing the audience the space to understand the geography of what’s happening within the frame. But I keep returning to the near total lack of originality. What is in this story that makes it worth telling? A bit of Heat, a bit of Copland, a bit of (God forbid) The Departed, stir well and then serve up The Town. I also found myself with little reason to care about the characters. Will Ben Affleck die? Go to jail? Live happily ever after? Get the girl, not get the girl? I don’t really care. And the script makes that lazy decision to have his best friend a borderline psycho who’s happy to kill. “See? Ben is not as bad as that guy. It’s okay to root for him.”
I have problems with Gone Baby Gone but it’s a much more interesting film. The Town feels like a way for Ben Affleck the director to hone his craft, challenge himself by directing action and plot and he has totally succeeded but, as a film, it’s treading water. It’s now time for him to get a really compelling piece of material and become the serious director he’s threatening to become.
Just please don’t set it in Boston.
6/10
The Town isn’t bad per se, it’s just so painfully unoriginal. Doug MacRay (Affleck) heads a team of bank robbers in Charlestown (or “Chaaaaaaalsetaaaaaan” in Boston vernacular) who, on one particular job, kidnap bank manager Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall) but let her go unharmed. Upon discovering that she actually lives right in their neighbourhood and they will probably see her every day, Affleck sets about ingratiating himself into her life to find out what she knows about the gang. Can you see where this is going? Of course you can. As they fall in love, FBI Agent John Hamm (still managing to be dapper in that effortless Don Draper way even with three day stubble and shoddy FBI clothes) is hot on their heels, knowing who the gang is and slowly gathering evidence to put them away for good. Present and accounted for are the best friend, the unhinged James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), the local crime lord (unlikely Pete Postlethwaite with an awesome Northern Irish accent) the Dad behind bars (Chris Cooper) and the drugged up skank causing problems for Affleck. (Blake Lively.) Is “drugged up skank” a politically correct term? Not sure. Anyway, boxes are ticked, scenes arrive with total predictability, the films goes exactly where you expect it to at every point and then it ends.
I’m coming down pretty hard on The Town and, in truth, because I like these kinds of films I was happy to watch it. The hook is that, an enormous percentage of all bank robberies committed in America occur in this small area of Charlestown. But while that's an interesting fact, it doesn't impact the story or the film in any meaningful way. Affleck wants out of the neighbourhood and his world of crime but so has every other protagonist in this kind of film before him. The "why" of it doesn't really matter. As I said above, the fact that it’s as well made as it is only serves to remind that we have been in this territory many, many times before. The various set pieces, opening bank robbery, a car chase through narrow streets and the climactic gun fight, are very well handled, Affleck and his always brilliant director of photograpy Robert Elswitt finding interesting angles to shoot the action from and allowing the audience the space to understand the geography of what’s happening within the frame. But I keep returning to the near total lack of originality. What is in this story that makes it worth telling? A bit of Heat, a bit of Copland, a bit of (God forbid) The Departed, stir well and then serve up The Town. I also found myself with little reason to care about the characters. Will Ben Affleck die? Go to jail? Live happily ever after? Get the girl, not get the girl? I don’t really care. And the script makes that lazy decision to have his best friend a borderline psycho who’s happy to kill. “See? Ben is not as bad as that guy. It’s okay to root for him.”
I have problems with Gone Baby Gone but it’s a much more interesting film. The Town feels like a way for Ben Affleck the director to hone his craft, challenge himself by directing action and plot and he has totally succeeded but, as a film, it’s treading water. It’s now time for him to get a really compelling piece of material and become the serious director he’s threatening to become.
Just please don’t set it in Boston.
6/10
Tuesday 21 September 2010
Quickies
I’m going to be offline for a few days so here are a couple of very quick reviews.
THE OTHER GUYS
I’ve come to the conclusion that I like Will Ferrell a lot more than I often like his films. Anchorman is without doubt his best, I have a soft spot for Blades Of Glory, but Talladega Nights, Semi Pro, Step Brothers… they all have funny stuff in them, usually Ferrell is the best thing in them, but the films as a whole are extremely scattershot, often too long and ultimately fall short to varying degrees. And to that list we can now add The Other Guys. What was surprising was how the film ended up being stolen from underneath Will Ferrell’s nose by Michael Keaton who is hilarious as the clichéd “Police Captain” who also happens to work at a bed and mattress superstore. Some very funny moments, definitely enough to make it worth a watch, but, again, scattershot, way too long and in the end probably insufficient.
5.5/10
DEVIL
When the concept is 6 people are trapped in a lift and one of them is the Devil, you really can’t complain about the resulting film. If, in a weird way, it had embraced its own inherent silliness a bit more it may have been quite good. But coming from the mind of M Night Shyamalan there is nothing throwaway or silly here. This is THE DEVIL people!!! And he’s in a lift!!! Thing is, it’s running time is 76 minutes and for that it’s definitely getting extra points. It’s also verging on the enjoyable in a bad way. It doesn’t quite get there, for the most part it’s just bad, and if anyone is fooled by the reveal of which of the elevator’s occupants the Devil ends up being, you should never be allowed inside another cinema ever again.
4.5/10
That’s it for now folks.
THE OTHER GUYS
I’ve come to the conclusion that I like Will Ferrell a lot more than I often like his films. Anchorman is without doubt his best, I have a soft spot for Blades Of Glory, but Talladega Nights, Semi Pro, Step Brothers… they all have funny stuff in them, usually Ferrell is the best thing in them, but the films as a whole are extremely scattershot, often too long and ultimately fall short to varying degrees. And to that list we can now add The Other Guys. What was surprising was how the film ended up being stolen from underneath Will Ferrell’s nose by Michael Keaton who is hilarious as the clichéd “Police Captain” who also happens to work at a bed and mattress superstore. Some very funny moments, definitely enough to make it worth a watch, but, again, scattershot, way too long and in the end probably insufficient.
5.5/10
DEVIL
When the concept is 6 people are trapped in a lift and one of them is the Devil, you really can’t complain about the resulting film. If, in a weird way, it had embraced its own inherent silliness a bit more it may have been quite good. But coming from the mind of M Night Shyamalan there is nothing throwaway or silly here. This is THE DEVIL people!!! And he’s in a lift!!! Thing is, it’s running time is 76 minutes and for that it’s definitely getting extra points. It’s also verging on the enjoyable in a bad way. It doesn’t quite get there, for the most part it’s just bad, and if anyone is fooled by the reveal of which of the elevator’s occupants the Devil ends up being, you should never be allowed inside another cinema ever again.
4.5/10
That’s it for now folks.
Friday 3 September 2010
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) Review
Sometimes you watch a film and you think, what am I doing here? What am I supposed to be getting from this? In fairness, the story of The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is pretty infamous by now so one could argue that, you know what you’re getting yourself into. But while the shock value of the idea might get you to see the film in the first place, ultimately the film itself needs to deliver something and, for my money, it really doesn’t.
So the story is (and do finish eating before you go any further) that mad scientist Dr. Heiter, who has spent his life separating Siamese twins, has decided that it’s time to do the opposite, i.e. connect people together. Via the digestive system. Ass to mouth. Literally. The unwitting subjects are two young American girls who are travelling across Europe and a young Japanese guy. The Japanese guy forms the head of the “centipede” and the two girls the middle and end. His creation complete, the Doctor goes about trying to train his human centipede, but of course things go wrong.
So let me try and eek out the good here. Given its concept, the film is surprisingly free of gore and viscera. Writer/director Tim Six understands that the idea of this film is enough to give you shivers. He knows that all it takes is the Japanese guy to say “I need a shit” and you will spend the next 5 minutes squirming in the most convulsive, uncomfortable horror as all you’re actually watching is a close up of the poor girl’s eyes. This is the girl who is in the middle I should explain. In case that wasn’t clear. The most effective sequence is when Dr. Heiter has his three subjects tied to their beds in his makeshift surgery in the basement of his house and he explains the details of what he is about to do, severing kneecaps, removing teeth, and literally sewing the three people together. He does this with the kind of matter-of-fact precision that any surgeon would use to explain to their patient the details of their forthcoming procedure and it’s very effective indeed. The point here isn’t torture for torture sake, like, say, Hostel or Saw. This is an experiment, and the fact that the three subjects are anaesthetised as he performs the various surgeries and then wake up in the positions they end up in, adds to the sense of madness and hopelessness and makes it more terrifying as a result. This is a man who knows exactly what he wants to do and is going about it without fuss or hysteria, in the most methodical and efficient way he can. On this point, arguably the greatest horror on display is the horror of humiliation and degradation. Dr. Heiter proceeds to try and train his new creation as if it were a pet, the three people forced to crawl on their hands and knees, eat the food the Doctor throws at them and suffer the consequences when they disobey. Again, it’s interesting to note that this punishment occurs off screen. You hear what is happening and that is more than enough. This is not to say there is no onscreen violence; I defy anyone to watch the tooth extraction without wincing or screaming like a girl and covering their face with a cushion. Not that that’s what I did of course. I merely winced and moved on. But the point is that Six is trying to create horror through ideas and, in a really unique way, this is the problem.
I have no time for violence for violence sake in films, including horror films. The best horror for me is always psychological, always about ideas, and while The Human Centipede eschews gratuitous violence, it is equally possible to assault people with an idea so gratuitous that you have to wonder, in a similar way as you would with the films that place gratuitous violence front and centre, what is the point? What am I to get from all this? The film succeeded in making me squirm at points, making me uncomfortable at points, but to what end? And if there isn’t an end or point greater than the sum of the parts (which, for me, there isn’t) then isn’t that the very definition of gratuitousness? Dieter Laser plays the part very well and what is good is the way he is obviously, in-your-face insane. There is no pretence, no attempt at subversion, he is batshit raving mad from frame one. The downside from a plot perspective is that, from the second the two girls enter his house and are offered a drink of water, you are screaming at them to run. He is CLEARLY up to no good, get the hell out of the house!!! What is also good about his performance is the fact that, it’s not brimming with tics and hysteria. As I said above, cold, methodical and efficient are the best words to describe him and this makes him even more frightening. Cold, methodical and efficient are also good words to describe Tim Six’s directing style and I found myself completely distanced from the subjects’ plight at all times. The ending, in particular the final image, is supposed to resonate and haunt you but I really didn’t care at that point and so it had no effect on me at all.
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) has and will gain notoriety. I like the fact that those seeking the very worst of what this film could have been will be disappointed by it not being as in-your-face as they will have presumably imagined. But in the end the only question I could ask is, what’s the point of it all? And, beyond to shock with a truly skin-crawling idea, I fear the answer is that there isn’t one.
4/10
So the story is (and do finish eating before you go any further) that mad scientist Dr. Heiter, who has spent his life separating Siamese twins, has decided that it’s time to do the opposite, i.e. connect people together. Via the digestive system. Ass to mouth. Literally. The unwitting subjects are two young American girls who are travelling across Europe and a young Japanese guy. The Japanese guy forms the head of the “centipede” and the two girls the middle and end. His creation complete, the Doctor goes about trying to train his human centipede, but of course things go wrong.
So let me try and eek out the good here. Given its concept, the film is surprisingly free of gore and viscera. Writer/director Tim Six understands that the idea of this film is enough to give you shivers. He knows that all it takes is the Japanese guy to say “I need a shit” and you will spend the next 5 minutes squirming in the most convulsive, uncomfortable horror as all you’re actually watching is a close up of the poor girl’s eyes. This is the girl who is in the middle I should explain. In case that wasn’t clear. The most effective sequence is when Dr. Heiter has his three subjects tied to their beds in his makeshift surgery in the basement of his house and he explains the details of what he is about to do, severing kneecaps, removing teeth, and literally sewing the three people together. He does this with the kind of matter-of-fact precision that any surgeon would use to explain to their patient the details of their forthcoming procedure and it’s very effective indeed. The point here isn’t torture for torture sake, like, say, Hostel or Saw. This is an experiment, and the fact that the three subjects are anaesthetised as he performs the various surgeries and then wake up in the positions they end up in, adds to the sense of madness and hopelessness and makes it more terrifying as a result. This is a man who knows exactly what he wants to do and is going about it without fuss or hysteria, in the most methodical and efficient way he can. On this point, arguably the greatest horror on display is the horror of humiliation and degradation. Dr. Heiter proceeds to try and train his new creation as if it were a pet, the three people forced to crawl on their hands and knees, eat the food the Doctor throws at them and suffer the consequences when they disobey. Again, it’s interesting to note that this punishment occurs off screen. You hear what is happening and that is more than enough. This is not to say there is no onscreen violence; I defy anyone to watch the tooth extraction without wincing or screaming like a girl and covering their face with a cushion. Not that that’s what I did of course. I merely winced and moved on. But the point is that Six is trying to create horror through ideas and, in a really unique way, this is the problem.
I have no time for violence for violence sake in films, including horror films. The best horror for me is always psychological, always about ideas, and while The Human Centipede eschews gratuitous violence, it is equally possible to assault people with an idea so gratuitous that you have to wonder, in a similar way as you would with the films that place gratuitous violence front and centre, what is the point? What am I to get from all this? The film succeeded in making me squirm at points, making me uncomfortable at points, but to what end? And if there isn’t an end or point greater than the sum of the parts (which, for me, there isn’t) then isn’t that the very definition of gratuitousness? Dieter Laser plays the part very well and what is good is the way he is obviously, in-your-face insane. There is no pretence, no attempt at subversion, he is batshit raving mad from frame one. The downside from a plot perspective is that, from the second the two girls enter his house and are offered a drink of water, you are screaming at them to run. He is CLEARLY up to no good, get the hell out of the house!!! What is also good about his performance is the fact that, it’s not brimming with tics and hysteria. As I said above, cold, methodical and efficient are the best words to describe him and this makes him even more frightening. Cold, methodical and efficient are also good words to describe Tim Six’s directing style and I found myself completely distanced from the subjects’ plight at all times. The ending, in particular the final image, is supposed to resonate and haunt you but I really didn’t care at that point and so it had no effect on me at all.
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) has and will gain notoriety. I like the fact that those seeking the very worst of what this film could have been will be disappointed by it not being as in-your-face as they will have presumably imagined. But in the end the only question I could ask is, what’s the point of it all? And, beyond to shock with a truly skin-crawling idea, I fear the answer is that there isn’t one.
4/10
Monday 23 August 2010
Salt Review
I can’t believe I enjoyed Salt! It’s 2012 AND The Expendables all over again where I know the film is bad but I’m enjoying it nonetheless.
In fairness, Salt (despite that ridiculous title) is slightly more credible than the other two films mentioned but it’s cut from similar cloth and essentially boils down to Hollywood nonsense that is more fun than it should be. Angelina Jolie plays CIA agent Evelyn Salt, who is forced to go on the run when a Russian defector literally walks in off the street to divulge information about sleeper Russian agents in place in the various American institutions who are about to initiate “Day X” a day when the agents become active and, through a series of devastating terrorist attacks, bring down the entire US. The defector identifies Salt as one such agent and announces, in CIA headquarters, that she is going to kill the Russian president later that day. Salt is forced to go on the run and ends up in a series of escalating action set pieces that require her to leap from roof tops, speeding lorries, infiltrate a massively guarded funeral service and, ultimately, break into The White House itself.
Angelina Jolie seems to be single-handedly making the case for the credibility of female action heroes and she does it exceptionally well. Much has been made of the fact she did most of her own stunts and Jolie is able to sell all the various high jumps and kicks, her patented leaping-against-a-wall-so-as-to-push-herself-off-it-into-a-bad-guy’s-face move being particularly awesome. Actually, I say “bad guys” but most of Salt’s victims are poor policemen or government agents of one kind or another who, one assumes, aren’t bad guys at all, merely getting in the way of what Salt has to do. On top of Jolie's physical prowess, seasoned thriller director Philip Noyce handles all the various set pieces with considerable flair and gives them a sense of reality that, for the most part, works quite well. Being about three steps ahead of any film is crippling, but in a thriller it’s disastrous, so extra kudos to Noyce and Jolie for making Kurt Wimmer’s pretty pedestrian screenplay (complete with ropey Hollywood dialogue, “We’re gonna crash this party”) come alive as well as they do. The film tries to keep Salt’s motivations for what she is doing vague, her guilt or innocence constantly a question. This all leads to a “surprise” ending that won’t be much of a surprise for anyone who has seen a single Hollywood thriller before. In fairness to the script, the Day X notion is a fun conspiracy, even if it is told in flashback. Oh and speaking of flashbacks, the moments where we get to see Jolie's relationship with husband August Diehl are a waste of time. And I wonder if his job as spider specialist is going to become important at any stage... One or two moments, (Jolie going undercover as a man being the worst offender) threaten to derail the film but there is always another fun chase or fight on the horizon to bring you back onside. British actor Chiwetol Ejiofor continues his run of big budget movies as Agent Peabody (Seriously, who the hell came up with these names?!?) the agent charged with bringing her in and Leiv Schrieber is wholly insufficient as her old friend and fellow agent Ted Winter (slightly better but somehow I would imagine someone called Ted Winter as a supply teacher rather than a crack CIA operative). But it’s Jolie’s show and she really delivers and props the film up when it’s losing steam.
I’ve had a run of dodgy action movies of late with Salt, The A Team, Expendables and Knight and Day, which I just realised I never reviewed; (it’s terrible 2.5/10. There you go!) It’s nice to see stand alone old fashioned action thrillers making a return (thank you Jason Bourne for that) and Salt was definitely my favourite. Of course, if it makes enough money we’ll be seeing more Evelyn Salt on our big screens which would be no bad thing in my view. Salt 2: Rock Salt, Salt 3-D: Sodium Free. The possibilities are endless.
7/10
In fairness, Salt (despite that ridiculous title) is slightly more credible than the other two films mentioned but it’s cut from similar cloth and essentially boils down to Hollywood nonsense that is more fun than it should be. Angelina Jolie plays CIA agent Evelyn Salt, who is forced to go on the run when a Russian defector literally walks in off the street to divulge information about sleeper Russian agents in place in the various American institutions who are about to initiate “Day X” a day when the agents become active and, through a series of devastating terrorist attacks, bring down the entire US. The defector identifies Salt as one such agent and announces, in CIA headquarters, that she is going to kill the Russian president later that day. Salt is forced to go on the run and ends up in a series of escalating action set pieces that require her to leap from roof tops, speeding lorries, infiltrate a massively guarded funeral service and, ultimately, break into The White House itself.
Angelina Jolie seems to be single-handedly making the case for the credibility of female action heroes and she does it exceptionally well. Much has been made of the fact she did most of her own stunts and Jolie is able to sell all the various high jumps and kicks, her patented leaping-against-a-wall-so-as-to-push-herself-off-it-into-a-bad-guy’s-face move being particularly awesome. Actually, I say “bad guys” but most of Salt’s victims are poor policemen or government agents of one kind or another who, one assumes, aren’t bad guys at all, merely getting in the way of what Salt has to do. On top of Jolie's physical prowess, seasoned thriller director Philip Noyce handles all the various set pieces with considerable flair and gives them a sense of reality that, for the most part, works quite well. Being about three steps ahead of any film is crippling, but in a thriller it’s disastrous, so extra kudos to Noyce and Jolie for making Kurt Wimmer’s pretty pedestrian screenplay (complete with ropey Hollywood dialogue, “We’re gonna crash this party”) come alive as well as they do. The film tries to keep Salt’s motivations for what she is doing vague, her guilt or innocence constantly a question. This all leads to a “surprise” ending that won’t be much of a surprise for anyone who has seen a single Hollywood thriller before. In fairness to the script, the Day X notion is a fun conspiracy, even if it is told in flashback. Oh and speaking of flashbacks, the moments where we get to see Jolie's relationship with husband August Diehl are a waste of time. And I wonder if his job as spider specialist is going to become important at any stage... One or two moments, (Jolie going undercover as a man being the worst offender) threaten to derail the film but there is always another fun chase or fight on the horizon to bring you back onside. British actor Chiwetol Ejiofor continues his run of big budget movies as Agent Peabody (Seriously, who the hell came up with these names?!?) the agent charged with bringing her in and Leiv Schrieber is wholly insufficient as her old friend and fellow agent Ted Winter (slightly better but somehow I would imagine someone called Ted Winter as a supply teacher rather than a crack CIA operative). But it’s Jolie’s show and she really delivers and props the film up when it’s losing steam.
I’ve had a run of dodgy action movies of late with Salt, The A Team, Expendables and Knight and Day, which I just realised I never reviewed; (it’s terrible 2.5/10. There you go!) It’s nice to see stand alone old fashioned action thrillers making a return (thank you Jason Bourne for that) and Salt was definitely my favourite. Of course, if it makes enough money we’ll be seeing more Evelyn Salt on our big screens which would be no bad thing in my view. Salt 2: Rock Salt, Salt 3-D: Sodium Free. The possibilities are endless.
7/10
The Expendables Review
I can’t believe I enjoyed The Expendables! It’s 2012 all over again where I know the film is bad but I’m enjoying it nonetheless.
In fairness, I wasn’t going with it for the first 20/25 minutes. The opening action sequence, taking down a ship full of Somalian pirates, was somewhat underwhelming, the following scenes of “character development” interminable. But writer/director/actor Sly Stallone knows he can’t get such presumably giant egos together in one movie without giving everyone their moment to shine and the scene that turned things around for me comes when Jason Statham (playing Lee Christmas. Honestly…) confronts his ex girlfriend’s new guy on a basketball court after he discovers the new guy has been beating her. It’s meant to reveal character, but as written by Sly and delivered by the Stath, it’s unintentionally hilarious and the fight is quite cool. I was now onside with the film and remained so right up until the last half hour of brilliantly over the top carnage that takes the last 20 minutes of Rambo and makes it look tame by comparison.
The story, such as it is, sees a team of mercenaries, the eponymous Expendables, try and take down evil CIA agent turned drug baron Eric Roberts and his puppet General played by David Zayas, Dexter’s Detective Angel Bathista. And that’s pretty much it. In truth, the film has been hyped as the greatest collection of action stars ever assembled in the greatest action movie ever made and on that level it’s disappointing. Anyone who has read the press conference will have noticed Sly’s somewhat barbed remark that Segal and Van Damme turned him down because they saw their careers going in “a different direction.” But (and I REALLY never thought I’d ever type the following sentence…) in a film billed as the greatest cast of action stars ever, their presence is missed. And the much trumpeted coming together of Stallone, Bruce Willis and the Guvernator is a blink and you’ll miss it 1 minute scene of cameos that, in truth, is kind of laboured. I don’t follow American wrestling so, despite having heard of Randy Couture and “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, really, their presence didn’t resonate with me particularly. Also, you know, they’re wrestlers. But what you DO get is a ludicrous, over-the-top, old fashioned, men-on-a-mission action movie. You never have any sense of danger for the team, despite their being called the Expendables, and even when 64 year old Sly is getting pummelled by a 30-something, brick shithouse professional wrestler, you still don’t feel any danger for him, even if the fight itself is a lot of fun. As I said, everyone is given their moment. Jet Li and Dolph Lungdren square off and, honestly, have you ever seen THAT before? Statham gets several moments of glory and, as he’s demonstrated before, is physically very adept. When Jason Statham is your most credible actor, that should send alarm bells ringing but somehow the whole debacle emerges unscathed from the onslaught of appalling dialogue, ropey acting and posturing by the leads. A fitting metaphor for the whole last half hour of the film in fact. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a good film in any traditional sense but as guilty pleasure movies go, it ends up being a lot of fun.
6.5/10
In fairness, I wasn’t going with it for the first 20/25 minutes. The opening action sequence, taking down a ship full of Somalian pirates, was somewhat underwhelming, the following scenes of “character development” interminable. But writer/director/actor Sly Stallone knows he can’t get such presumably giant egos together in one movie without giving everyone their moment to shine and the scene that turned things around for me comes when Jason Statham (playing Lee Christmas. Honestly…) confronts his ex girlfriend’s new guy on a basketball court after he discovers the new guy has been beating her. It’s meant to reveal character, but as written by Sly and delivered by the Stath, it’s unintentionally hilarious and the fight is quite cool. I was now onside with the film and remained so right up until the last half hour of brilliantly over the top carnage that takes the last 20 minutes of Rambo and makes it look tame by comparison.
The story, such as it is, sees a team of mercenaries, the eponymous Expendables, try and take down evil CIA agent turned drug baron Eric Roberts and his puppet General played by David Zayas, Dexter’s Detective Angel Bathista. And that’s pretty much it. In truth, the film has been hyped as the greatest collection of action stars ever assembled in the greatest action movie ever made and on that level it’s disappointing. Anyone who has read the press conference will have noticed Sly’s somewhat barbed remark that Segal and Van Damme turned him down because they saw their careers going in “a different direction.” But (and I REALLY never thought I’d ever type the following sentence…) in a film billed as the greatest cast of action stars ever, their presence is missed. And the much trumpeted coming together of Stallone, Bruce Willis and the Guvernator is a blink and you’ll miss it 1 minute scene of cameos that, in truth, is kind of laboured. I don’t follow American wrestling so, despite having heard of Randy Couture and “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, really, their presence didn’t resonate with me particularly. Also, you know, they’re wrestlers. But what you DO get is a ludicrous, over-the-top, old fashioned, men-on-a-mission action movie. You never have any sense of danger for the team, despite their being called the Expendables, and even when 64 year old Sly is getting pummelled by a 30-something, brick shithouse professional wrestler, you still don’t feel any danger for him, even if the fight itself is a lot of fun. As I said, everyone is given their moment. Jet Li and Dolph Lungdren square off and, honestly, have you ever seen THAT before? Statham gets several moments of glory and, as he’s demonstrated before, is physically very adept. When Jason Statham is your most credible actor, that should send alarm bells ringing but somehow the whole debacle emerges unscathed from the onslaught of appalling dialogue, ropey acting and posturing by the leads. A fitting metaphor for the whole last half hour of the film in fact. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a good film in any traditional sense but as guilty pleasure movies go, it ends up being a lot of fun.
6.5/10
Friday 20 August 2010
The Expendables Press Conference
You know you’re out of place when the gentleman ushering you to the hotel conference room is wearing cufflinks that are more expensive than your entire ensemble. Did he really have to look me up and down with such disdain? Anyway thus began my first visit to The Dorchester Hotel to cover the press conference for The Expendables. The email from Lionsgate said to arrive at 11.15 for an 11.30 start. I got there at 11 and the place was already three quarters full. I ended up sitting near the back beside someone from Nuts magazine. I wanted to tell him that I’m much more of a Zoo Magazine kinda guy but I thought it best to keep that one to myself.
The panel consisted of Stallone, Dolph Lungdren and Jason Statham. The bulk of the questions were directed at Sly and this became a running gag throughout the whole event. Dolph Lungdren barely spoke but he smiled and laughed his way through the whole thing. Stallone was engaging and enthusiastic and had a great rapport with the assembled journalists and the atmosphere of the whole press conference was light and fun. The event was moderated by a woman from Lionsgate, the film’s distributor. We all waved our hands frantically to get her attention so as to ask our questions. Unfortunately, sitting near the back, Eggmag wasn’t able to get their question asked, despite much waving of hands, and, at one point, standing up and waving. So I’m afraid folks we’ll never know Sylvester Stallone’s take on internet hype and marketing of films in the face of a Q&A session he recently did with fans on Ain’t It Cool News. Which would have been a better question than some of the ones that were asked… I’m looking at you Miss How Does Your Faith Influence The Films You Make. I particularly liked Sly’s response to being asked if he feels the need to justify the violence in his films…
The moderator got the ball rolling with the first question. Enjoy…
MODERATOR. At the screening last week there was a massive round of applause before the film even started and as each star’s name appeared (in the credits) there were whoops of joy. To what extent does that level of excitement and expectation bring extra challenges or responsibilities to do something really special with the Expendables?
STALLONE. Well it’s like that around my house every morning, “Hey look it’s Dad, whoo!”
LAUGHTER
STALLONE. It’s A LOT of extra pressure. You know sometimes you have a major turkey and it’s not even Thanksgiving and you know it’s gonna be bad. But this time, this is the other end of the spectrum where there was a great expectancy and we thought, well gee, I wasn’t expecting this when we started making it so we better live up to this idea everyone has. It’s kind of complex, you know?
MODERATOR. And Dolph and Jason, how was it for you? Do you feel the expectation? Is there extra responsibility?
STATHAM. Well it’s all on Sly I’m afraid. So no.
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. Oh just deflect it onto Sly.
STATHAM. Well that’s why you try to work with people who know what they‘re doing.
STALLONE. You better go work with Christopher Nolan pal. I’m guessing my way through this.
LAUGHTER.
At this point they opened it up to the floor.
QUESTION. Sly and Dolph, how would you compare your relationship now to the way it was 25 years ago when you did Rocky 4? Was it the same dynamic as before?
STALLONE. Well I never trained harder for a Rocky movie than I did for Rocky 4. And Dolph is brutal, he’s a world class athlete so we got to know each other pretty well. Then times change, we go through ups and downs, marriages, whatever, and meeting in this time it’s really great because, of all the actors I’ve worked with, Dolph has remained the most grounded, the most humble. Believe me actors can change a lot, it’s rough, it’s very competitive. But…yeah it has changed. I was dying to kick his brains in. He pounded me in that movie! (Rocky 4) I look at him now and I think, what was I thinking?! The guy is a monster! He put me in the hospital for days! So, you don’t think I had a grudge?! That’s why I shot you! (in The Expendables.)
LAUGHTER.
MODERATOR. And Dolph, would you like to comment any further?
LUNGDREN. No.
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. Question for Sly…
STALLONE. Hey look, you gotta talk to these guys too!
QUESTION. What was it like managing all the testosterone on set? Did you have an all female crew to balance it out?
STALLONE. Female what?! No, well it got kinda aggressive. Let’s say Jason had an action beat. And he’s very physical, you’ll see in the documentaries, his hands were on ice, he was leaping onto baking hot ground over and over and he keeps wanting to do it and I had to say, “stop, stop.” So then the next fellow who has to do his stunt, he looks at Jason and says “Jason is really good, I’m going to kill this guy!” So it keeps building in competitiveness, men are just naturally competitive, they want to keep upping the ante. So, I don’t know if there were any women around. They were tough if there were, you had to be tough on this show.
QUESTION. And Jason and Dolph, was there anything you were scared of doing? Anything you won’t do?
STATHAM. I won’t wear a flowery shirt. I’m scared of that.
LAUGHTER.
STATHAM. No it’s all part of the job. The good thing about a film like this getting done and having Sly in control of it is that he shoots a lot of the stunts in the camera. A lot of the action directors of today tend to rely on the visual and it becomes boring because there’s a lot of CGI. When you do an action movie that requires real stunts, real action, it’s a great opportunity and that’s what we’re looking for, we can’t wait to get stuck in and do all that stuff.
QUESTION. Is there anyone you wanted to be involved that couldn’t do it or didn’t want to do it? And how did you get so many names in one film?
STALLONE. Well, at first it was just myself, Jason and Jet Li and it began to develop from that. And I was thinking of different things, you know originally I thought Ben Kingsley as the bad guy and Forest Whittaker, but then I thought that’s not gonna fly, let me just go really old school. So I called Dolph and he accepted immediately, he was very gracious. And then I thought, there aren’t a lot of young guys, bad asses out there today, guys who just want to get it on. Now, I believe the younger generation would like to show their metal, they want to prove themselves but there were just none around. So I went to the MMA and got a 5 time world champion who‘s at the top of his game, Steve Austin an incredibly powerful human being, you know, whatever you think about wrestling these are guys who are 250 pounds of solid muscle and it just kept building from there. I went to Van Damme and Steven Segal but they just had different ideas on their career, so…
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. With a lot of high profile actors starring in flop movies, do you think star actors matter anymore?
STALLONE. Jason, do you want to answer that before you fall asleep?
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. Stars don’t matter that much. Concept matters. The overall originality or reinterpretation of a really classic situation, like the way Star Wars went back to Joseph Campbell, all the variations on that, that’s what matters. Whereas when Dolph and I were starting out, this was a little before your time Jason. You were still… a thought. You were a concept.
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. But with Dolph and I, they put you in a film and surround you with these guys, you were these unresolved characters but you can’t do that today. Rambo was a one man show but you can’t just do that now. But there is a lot more at stake today. Where you had maybe 400 films a year, now you have 250 so the stakes are very high and it’s almost a science now, what they make. So there’s no more “Oh I got a gut feeling. I’m gonna take a chance. I know everyone says no but I’m gonna try it anyway.” That’s gone. It’s all scientific. Every actor is weighed against what they can bring in from different territories. It’s like a math project.
QUESTION. Sly, how has your faith influenced the films you make? And do you feel the need to justify the violence in your films?
STALLONE. Well I’ve made a lot of career mistakes. Personal mistakes too actually. A lot. But I never started out to be an action actor, I was an ensemble actor. Rocky was ensemble, FIST was ensemble and Paradise Alley was ensemble. Then along came First Blood and there was the beginning of something unusual. Once all the dialogue was cut out, it was a very visual film. And I believe that the violence is very justifiable. One thing in my films, I only kill people that need to be killed. The ones that deserve it get it and the ones that go after women really get it. Really get it. If a man is really having his way with a woman, tearing her apart, wrecking her life, I’m not just going to shoot him with a bullet, that’s way too civilised. He’s gonna feel real pain and I think the audience wants that and feels it cathartically. Now, if you do that in every scene then it’s a horror film. But…yeah, I don’t feel guilty about it at all. I can feel guilty if you want me to?
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. Jason, what was it like working with people you grew up watching?
STATHAM. It’s a situation where you get to know the real man behind the camera. It’s not the film maker anymore it’s just a regular guy. And to me that was the best part of working with Sly, getting to know him as a person. There’s no substitute for that.
QUESTION. Did you have to pinch yourself?
STATHAM. You can do that if you want, yeah.
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. What was it like writing and directing and starring in the film? And Jason, what was it like acting with Sly as he’s directing you too?
STALLONE. My method is to learn everybody’s lines. Write the script, learn the entire script, that way I don’t have to think about it anymore, I can concentrate on the actors. Then, when we’re doing a scene, Jason will tell you, he’s always giving different lines on the spur of the moment.
STATHAM. Yeah, that’s the thing with having a guy who’s the writer and director because you have full liberty to change and improvise and you don’t normally get that, you get restrictions. Some guy wrote the script and he doesn’t want anyone to mess with that, the director isn’t allowed to mess with it, so it’s the best situation you can get.
STALLONE. For example, in the scene with the Somalian pirates, it builds up, “You want the money then come and get it.” Then, I go “BZZZ” everyone’s like, what’s that? “Say you’re getting a text.” And Jason is like, “What? I’m not gonna say that.” “Just say it!” “I’m not gonna say that!” And the camera is rolling the whole time. “So I’ll go BZZZ and then you say, I’m getting a text.” Camera is still rolling. So I go “BZZZ” and Jason goes, “I’m getting a text.” So now I look at Terry and I say, “Say it better not be from my wife.” And Terry is like, “What? I’m not saying that!” Oh just say it! So he says it. You have the formula, the blueprint, and once you have it then let’s just go and everyone ad libs. We had a nicely scripted piece but it didn’t have those eccentricities. Like when Dolph is hanging a pirate. It’s crazy but it’s memorable. Crazy is memorable.
MODERATOR. And Dolph, I think we wanted to hear from you on this?
LUNGDREN. Well they’re both right. I agree.
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. Jason, this is your third film with Jet Li, how has working with him shaped your career?
STATHAM. Well none of the films I’ve done with Jet, apart from this one, have been any good.
LAUGHTER.
STATHAM. It’s difficult because my first movie with Jet wasn’t what it was supposed to be. But it gave me the opportunity to work with (fight choreographer) Corey Yuen which was instrumental in me playing in The Transporter films. But it’s coincidental that we’re doing another film together. It’s not that we beat Sly up and held him down, “We want to do a film together.”
STALLONE. But I think it’s a perfect example of how difficult it is to get an action film out there and have it performed and have the proper people involved. It’s great for Jason to see how it was done the old way.
STATHAM. And I’d like to add to that because the films I did with Jet were science fiction based and this harks back to the old school action movies, basically the ones that I am interested in doing.
QUESTION. There is a paternal theme in your films now, it’s the heart of Rocky Balboa and you have it with Julie Benz’s character in Rambo too. It seems that with The Expendables that you have a paternal relationship with Jason Statham’s character. How much of that is intentional?
STALLONE. It’s very intentional. You have to be age appropriate and he would be the protégé. He’s like the guy who will eventually take over but in the meantime I can tease him about his love life, not to take himself too seriously, stuff like that, like a father and son would do, but yeah it’s not by accident. You know, I always try to deal with redemption. I think everyone has regret that at one moment they made the wrong decision and sometimes you never get your life back on course. And that theme, from Rocky to Rambo to this, haunts me. Maybe I’m just mono-minded or limited but to me it’s inextinguishable. The thing with Mickey Rourke when he goes, “We used to be something and now we’re worth nothing because we gave up.” Okay so, redemption. How do I get it back? By doing something “charitable.” So that’s the theme, without overburdening the film and turning it into a talk fest. And you couldn’t understand what I’m saying anyway, so why bother doing that?
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. With Rocky and Rambo there was a sense of closure, of you saying goodbye to your characters but I didn’t get that feeling with this. Are we going to see more action films from you or can we expect films with a bit more mind than muscle?
STALLONE. I don’t know, see, I’ve done my “mind movies” and I don’t think people are that interested in seeing me do that anymore. I’m past my prime in doing dramatic films. I think it becomes almost a pathetic cry out to be recognised as a serious dramaturge. I got my little moment, I’m very proud of the drama in Rocky Balboa, that’s about as deep as I can go, Copland too. I would much rather direct dramas. But The Expendables I would like to see go on. I’d like everyone to go on except him. (points at Dolph Lungdren.)
LUNGDREN. Because I talk too much.
QUESTION. Dolph, you’re in a similar position, you’ve directed five action films. Would you like to be completely behind the camera?
LUNGDREN. No, both are cool. One is easier than the other, behind the camera is more challenging. But I like to do both.
STALLONE. You know, contrary to how he looks, he’s really a very smart guy.
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. Seriously! You know, here’s this beautiful guy, 6.5, Viking kinda guy, 29 inch waist, I’m going, he’s got to be a moron. But here he is, MIT graduate, Fulbright scholar, I’m going, him? Seriously? I mean, can you imagine him in a lab with test tubes going, “I will cure this rat of something.”
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. He went from scientist to savage.
QUESTION. Why do you think audiences fell out of love with the action hero?
LUNGDREN. Well I don’t think people fell out of love, I think it just changed a little bit. And you know, it’ll change again.
STALLONE. That’s completly right. Every generation, including mine, has their own heroes. I mean I didn’t identify with John Wayne, I identified with James Dean. You have to find your own heroes and this generation has defined superheroes as their heroes. That’s why we (The Expendables) are kind of a novelty. That’s just the way it is. Look at music. It’s unrecognisable from what it was 20 years ago. That’s just the way it is. And then maybe it’ll go retro. Really, only Jason is current. Which is really lucky for us.
QUESTION. If you had made this film 20 years ago it would have cost you everything you ever owned…
STALLONE. (Laughing) Yeah!
QUESTION ….How did you get everyone now? Was it favours?
STALLONE. I could never have afforded Bruce and Arnold, that would have been the whole budget of the movie. Jason is a lot of money but he’s well worth it. £100 a week but worth every penny.
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. But you’re right it would have been impossible if everyone had wanted their price. But things have changed, prices are dropping drastically. You’re lucky now just to get work. People that were getting 10 million are now down to 2 and they’re going thank you. But this was all favours. Some people worked for nothing. Mainly me.
And with that the Moderator called an end and the Expendables left the stage. On the way out, I hovered in the foyer, just in case. Jason Statham was ushered away and Dolph Lungdren wasted no time either. But Sly was having transport organised for him, he was heading off to another press engagement and so he hung around for a couple of minutes, signing autographs, answering questions, posing for photos. I managed to get his attention. “It’s a great film, well done.” And I offered my hand. “Oh that’s very nice, thank you.” And he shook my hand. And, despite being somewhat shocked that my 5 feet 8 inch frame was slightly taller than Sly’s, I nonetheless felt a transference of testosterone that made me want to get behind the biggest, jeep-mounted weapon I could find and turn faceless bad guys into red mist.
In the end though, I got on the tube and went home.
I'll get my review of The Expendables up as soon as I can. It opens today and it's ludicrous but good fun.
The panel consisted of Stallone, Dolph Lungdren and Jason Statham. The bulk of the questions were directed at Sly and this became a running gag throughout the whole event. Dolph Lungdren barely spoke but he smiled and laughed his way through the whole thing. Stallone was engaging and enthusiastic and had a great rapport with the assembled journalists and the atmosphere of the whole press conference was light and fun. The event was moderated by a woman from Lionsgate, the film’s distributor. We all waved our hands frantically to get her attention so as to ask our questions. Unfortunately, sitting near the back, Eggmag wasn’t able to get their question asked, despite much waving of hands, and, at one point, standing up and waving. So I’m afraid folks we’ll never know Sylvester Stallone’s take on internet hype and marketing of films in the face of a Q&A session he recently did with fans on Ain’t It Cool News. Which would have been a better question than some of the ones that were asked… I’m looking at you Miss How Does Your Faith Influence The Films You Make. I particularly liked Sly’s response to being asked if he feels the need to justify the violence in his films…
The moderator got the ball rolling with the first question. Enjoy…
MODERATOR. At the screening last week there was a massive round of applause before the film even started and as each star’s name appeared (in the credits) there were whoops of joy. To what extent does that level of excitement and expectation bring extra challenges or responsibilities to do something really special with the Expendables?
STALLONE. Well it’s like that around my house every morning, “Hey look it’s Dad, whoo!”
LAUGHTER
STALLONE. It’s A LOT of extra pressure. You know sometimes you have a major turkey and it’s not even Thanksgiving and you know it’s gonna be bad. But this time, this is the other end of the spectrum where there was a great expectancy and we thought, well gee, I wasn’t expecting this when we started making it so we better live up to this idea everyone has. It’s kind of complex, you know?
MODERATOR. And Dolph and Jason, how was it for you? Do you feel the expectation? Is there extra responsibility?
STATHAM. Well it’s all on Sly I’m afraid. So no.
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. Oh just deflect it onto Sly.
STATHAM. Well that’s why you try to work with people who know what they‘re doing.
STALLONE. You better go work with Christopher Nolan pal. I’m guessing my way through this.
LAUGHTER.
At this point they opened it up to the floor.
QUESTION. Sly and Dolph, how would you compare your relationship now to the way it was 25 years ago when you did Rocky 4? Was it the same dynamic as before?
STALLONE. Well I never trained harder for a Rocky movie than I did for Rocky 4. And Dolph is brutal, he’s a world class athlete so we got to know each other pretty well. Then times change, we go through ups and downs, marriages, whatever, and meeting in this time it’s really great because, of all the actors I’ve worked with, Dolph has remained the most grounded, the most humble. Believe me actors can change a lot, it’s rough, it’s very competitive. But…yeah it has changed. I was dying to kick his brains in. He pounded me in that movie! (Rocky 4) I look at him now and I think, what was I thinking?! The guy is a monster! He put me in the hospital for days! So, you don’t think I had a grudge?! That’s why I shot you! (in The Expendables.)
LAUGHTER.
MODERATOR. And Dolph, would you like to comment any further?
LUNGDREN. No.
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. Question for Sly…
STALLONE. Hey look, you gotta talk to these guys too!
QUESTION. What was it like managing all the testosterone on set? Did you have an all female crew to balance it out?
STALLONE. Female what?! No, well it got kinda aggressive. Let’s say Jason had an action beat. And he’s very physical, you’ll see in the documentaries, his hands were on ice, he was leaping onto baking hot ground over and over and he keeps wanting to do it and I had to say, “stop, stop.” So then the next fellow who has to do his stunt, he looks at Jason and says “Jason is really good, I’m going to kill this guy!” So it keeps building in competitiveness, men are just naturally competitive, they want to keep upping the ante. So, I don’t know if there were any women around. They were tough if there were, you had to be tough on this show.
QUESTION. And Jason and Dolph, was there anything you were scared of doing? Anything you won’t do?
STATHAM. I won’t wear a flowery shirt. I’m scared of that.
LAUGHTER.
STATHAM. No it’s all part of the job. The good thing about a film like this getting done and having Sly in control of it is that he shoots a lot of the stunts in the camera. A lot of the action directors of today tend to rely on the visual and it becomes boring because there’s a lot of CGI. When you do an action movie that requires real stunts, real action, it’s a great opportunity and that’s what we’re looking for, we can’t wait to get stuck in and do all that stuff.
QUESTION. Is there anyone you wanted to be involved that couldn’t do it or didn’t want to do it? And how did you get so many names in one film?
STALLONE. Well, at first it was just myself, Jason and Jet Li and it began to develop from that. And I was thinking of different things, you know originally I thought Ben Kingsley as the bad guy and Forest Whittaker, but then I thought that’s not gonna fly, let me just go really old school. So I called Dolph and he accepted immediately, he was very gracious. And then I thought, there aren’t a lot of young guys, bad asses out there today, guys who just want to get it on. Now, I believe the younger generation would like to show their metal, they want to prove themselves but there were just none around. So I went to the MMA and got a 5 time world champion who‘s at the top of his game, Steve Austin an incredibly powerful human being, you know, whatever you think about wrestling these are guys who are 250 pounds of solid muscle and it just kept building from there. I went to Van Damme and Steven Segal but they just had different ideas on their career, so…
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. With a lot of high profile actors starring in flop movies, do you think star actors matter anymore?
STALLONE. Jason, do you want to answer that before you fall asleep?
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. Stars don’t matter that much. Concept matters. The overall originality or reinterpretation of a really classic situation, like the way Star Wars went back to Joseph Campbell, all the variations on that, that’s what matters. Whereas when Dolph and I were starting out, this was a little before your time Jason. You were still… a thought. You were a concept.
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. But with Dolph and I, they put you in a film and surround you with these guys, you were these unresolved characters but you can’t do that today. Rambo was a one man show but you can’t just do that now. But there is a lot more at stake today. Where you had maybe 400 films a year, now you have 250 so the stakes are very high and it’s almost a science now, what they make. So there’s no more “Oh I got a gut feeling. I’m gonna take a chance. I know everyone says no but I’m gonna try it anyway.” That’s gone. It’s all scientific. Every actor is weighed against what they can bring in from different territories. It’s like a math project.
QUESTION. Sly, how has your faith influenced the films you make? And do you feel the need to justify the violence in your films?
STALLONE. Well I’ve made a lot of career mistakes. Personal mistakes too actually. A lot. But I never started out to be an action actor, I was an ensemble actor. Rocky was ensemble, FIST was ensemble and Paradise Alley was ensemble. Then along came First Blood and there was the beginning of something unusual. Once all the dialogue was cut out, it was a very visual film. And I believe that the violence is very justifiable. One thing in my films, I only kill people that need to be killed. The ones that deserve it get it and the ones that go after women really get it. Really get it. If a man is really having his way with a woman, tearing her apart, wrecking her life, I’m not just going to shoot him with a bullet, that’s way too civilised. He’s gonna feel real pain and I think the audience wants that and feels it cathartically. Now, if you do that in every scene then it’s a horror film. But…yeah, I don’t feel guilty about it at all. I can feel guilty if you want me to?
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. Jason, what was it like working with people you grew up watching?
STATHAM. It’s a situation where you get to know the real man behind the camera. It’s not the film maker anymore it’s just a regular guy. And to me that was the best part of working with Sly, getting to know him as a person. There’s no substitute for that.
QUESTION. Did you have to pinch yourself?
STATHAM. You can do that if you want, yeah.
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. What was it like writing and directing and starring in the film? And Jason, what was it like acting with Sly as he’s directing you too?
STALLONE. My method is to learn everybody’s lines. Write the script, learn the entire script, that way I don’t have to think about it anymore, I can concentrate on the actors. Then, when we’re doing a scene, Jason will tell you, he’s always giving different lines on the spur of the moment.
STATHAM. Yeah, that’s the thing with having a guy who’s the writer and director because you have full liberty to change and improvise and you don’t normally get that, you get restrictions. Some guy wrote the script and he doesn’t want anyone to mess with that, the director isn’t allowed to mess with it, so it’s the best situation you can get.
STALLONE. For example, in the scene with the Somalian pirates, it builds up, “You want the money then come and get it.” Then, I go “BZZZ” everyone’s like, what’s that? “Say you’re getting a text.” And Jason is like, “What? I’m not gonna say that.” “Just say it!” “I’m not gonna say that!” And the camera is rolling the whole time. “So I’ll go BZZZ and then you say, I’m getting a text.” Camera is still rolling. So I go “BZZZ” and Jason goes, “I’m getting a text.” So now I look at Terry and I say, “Say it better not be from my wife.” And Terry is like, “What? I’m not saying that!” Oh just say it! So he says it. You have the formula, the blueprint, and once you have it then let’s just go and everyone ad libs. We had a nicely scripted piece but it didn’t have those eccentricities. Like when Dolph is hanging a pirate. It’s crazy but it’s memorable. Crazy is memorable.
MODERATOR. And Dolph, I think we wanted to hear from you on this?
LUNGDREN. Well they’re both right. I agree.
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. Jason, this is your third film with Jet Li, how has working with him shaped your career?
STATHAM. Well none of the films I’ve done with Jet, apart from this one, have been any good.
LAUGHTER.
STATHAM. It’s difficult because my first movie with Jet wasn’t what it was supposed to be. But it gave me the opportunity to work with (fight choreographer) Corey Yuen which was instrumental in me playing in The Transporter films. But it’s coincidental that we’re doing another film together. It’s not that we beat Sly up and held him down, “We want to do a film together.”
STALLONE. But I think it’s a perfect example of how difficult it is to get an action film out there and have it performed and have the proper people involved. It’s great for Jason to see how it was done the old way.
STATHAM. And I’d like to add to that because the films I did with Jet were science fiction based and this harks back to the old school action movies, basically the ones that I am interested in doing.
QUESTION. There is a paternal theme in your films now, it’s the heart of Rocky Balboa and you have it with Julie Benz’s character in Rambo too. It seems that with The Expendables that you have a paternal relationship with Jason Statham’s character. How much of that is intentional?
STALLONE. It’s very intentional. You have to be age appropriate and he would be the protégé. He’s like the guy who will eventually take over but in the meantime I can tease him about his love life, not to take himself too seriously, stuff like that, like a father and son would do, but yeah it’s not by accident. You know, I always try to deal with redemption. I think everyone has regret that at one moment they made the wrong decision and sometimes you never get your life back on course. And that theme, from Rocky to Rambo to this, haunts me. Maybe I’m just mono-minded or limited but to me it’s inextinguishable. The thing with Mickey Rourke when he goes, “We used to be something and now we’re worth nothing because we gave up.” Okay so, redemption. How do I get it back? By doing something “charitable.” So that’s the theme, without overburdening the film and turning it into a talk fest. And you couldn’t understand what I’m saying anyway, so why bother doing that?
LAUGHTER.
QUESTION. With Rocky and Rambo there was a sense of closure, of you saying goodbye to your characters but I didn’t get that feeling with this. Are we going to see more action films from you or can we expect films with a bit more mind than muscle?
STALLONE. I don’t know, see, I’ve done my “mind movies” and I don’t think people are that interested in seeing me do that anymore. I’m past my prime in doing dramatic films. I think it becomes almost a pathetic cry out to be recognised as a serious dramaturge. I got my little moment, I’m very proud of the drama in Rocky Balboa, that’s about as deep as I can go, Copland too. I would much rather direct dramas. But The Expendables I would like to see go on. I’d like everyone to go on except him. (points at Dolph Lungdren.)
LUNGDREN. Because I talk too much.
QUESTION. Dolph, you’re in a similar position, you’ve directed five action films. Would you like to be completely behind the camera?
LUNGDREN. No, both are cool. One is easier than the other, behind the camera is more challenging. But I like to do both.
STALLONE. You know, contrary to how he looks, he’s really a very smart guy.
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. Seriously! You know, here’s this beautiful guy, 6.5, Viking kinda guy, 29 inch waist, I’m going, he’s got to be a moron. But here he is, MIT graduate, Fulbright scholar, I’m going, him? Seriously? I mean, can you imagine him in a lab with test tubes going, “I will cure this rat of something.”
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. He went from scientist to savage.
QUESTION. Why do you think audiences fell out of love with the action hero?
LUNGDREN. Well I don’t think people fell out of love, I think it just changed a little bit. And you know, it’ll change again.
STALLONE. That’s completly right. Every generation, including mine, has their own heroes. I mean I didn’t identify with John Wayne, I identified with James Dean. You have to find your own heroes and this generation has defined superheroes as their heroes. That’s why we (The Expendables) are kind of a novelty. That’s just the way it is. Look at music. It’s unrecognisable from what it was 20 years ago. That’s just the way it is. And then maybe it’ll go retro. Really, only Jason is current. Which is really lucky for us.
QUESTION. If you had made this film 20 years ago it would have cost you everything you ever owned…
STALLONE. (Laughing) Yeah!
QUESTION ….How did you get everyone now? Was it favours?
STALLONE. I could never have afforded Bruce and Arnold, that would have been the whole budget of the movie. Jason is a lot of money but he’s well worth it. £100 a week but worth every penny.
LAUGHTER.
STALLONE. But you’re right it would have been impossible if everyone had wanted their price. But things have changed, prices are dropping drastically. You’re lucky now just to get work. People that were getting 10 million are now down to 2 and they’re going thank you. But this was all favours. Some people worked for nothing. Mainly me.
And with that the Moderator called an end and the Expendables left the stage. On the way out, I hovered in the foyer, just in case. Jason Statham was ushered away and Dolph Lungdren wasted no time either. But Sly was having transport organised for him, he was heading off to another press engagement and so he hung around for a couple of minutes, signing autographs, answering questions, posing for photos. I managed to get his attention. “It’s a great film, well done.” And I offered my hand. “Oh that’s very nice, thank you.” And he shook my hand. And, despite being somewhat shocked that my 5 feet 8 inch frame was slightly taller than Sly’s, I nonetheless felt a transference of testosterone that made me want to get behind the biggest, jeep-mounted weapon I could find and turn faceless bad guys into red mist.
In the end though, I got on the tube and went home.
I'll get my review of The Expendables up as soon as I can. It opens today and it's ludicrous but good fun.
Friday 13 August 2010
Jez Lewis Interview
A couple of weeks ago I got to speak with Jez Lewis, director of the excellent documentary Shed Your Tears And Walk Away in which he returns to his hometown of Hebdon Bridge to try and root out the causes of the town’s crippling drugs, alcohol and suicide problems. Jez was screening the film and giving a Q&A and I spoke to him for about 40 minutes before he had to go into the screening room for the talk. Jez made for a great interview, passionate, intelligent and very honest.
Check out my review here first as it will help illuminate the people and scenes we end up talking about.
http://eggmagmovies.blogspot.com/2010/06/shed-your-tears-and-walk-away-review.html
This is a slightly longer version than the one on Eggmag's main website. Enjoy!
GARRETH. When you first left Hebdon Bridge when you were young, was there a problem then and were you aware of it?
JEZ. Yeah I’d say there was. Drugs were around, but because I was growing up there and nowhere else, I had a sense that it was unusual but I didn’t know – I couldn’t be sure. I had a year off before uni when I went travelling and got more of a sense that my experience in Hebdon was unusual. But also my next door neighbour had attempted suicide when I was about 16. Another friend committed suicide, I knew of another lad who committed suicide. But I actually became more aware when I got to university and experiences there showed me that actually most people didn’t take drugs – I didn’t take drugs.
GARRETH. That’s interesting because a lot of the time it’s the other way around. You go to university and this world opens up of alcohol and drugs…
JEZ. Well that’s what happened to some of my friends but I’d quit drinking by then, I quit drinking when I was 17.
GARRETH. How come? As a product of growing up in Hebdon?
JEZ. No, I was always terrified of drugs and addiction. I was also heavily involved in karate, I was quite sporty and I just made a twat of myself drinking one night and thought I’m not doing that anymore. A couple of friends had gone on a health kick and I joined in but took it a little further by quitting drinking.
Then, a friend came to me and said, “Can I ask you a personal question?” I said she could and with some trepidation she said, “A mutual friend told me you know someone who tried to commit suicide.” I just laughed and she looked incredibly shocked. I thought it was a wind up but it wasn’t. A friend of hers had attempted suicide and she wanted to talk to someone who had had that experience. So I said I didn’t mean to offend her, it’s just that I know a lot of people who have done that. And I started to get more of an awareness [of the problem] than I had when I was living at home.
GARRETH. You mean, being able to look back and say there is actually something seriously wrong?
JEZ. Yeah. Everyone at university was Southern, middle class and from private education. Whereas I was from a working class comprehensive school so there were differences and I didn’t know how much to attribute to the fact that we were from completely different backgrounds, or how much of it was specifically Hebdon. And then I made trips back to Hebdon and I saw my peers taking crack or whatever. It was gradual, but more people died or committed suicide, and really at the start of the film when Emma [School friend Of Jez] died I still hadn’t moved my perception to the fact that there is definitely something different there. So I did some research and it was then I decided I must make the film.
GARRETH. So then, when you started the film, did you have a particular agenda or did you find what you wanted as you were filming it?
JEZ. I went there to ask some questions in a journalistic way and I was only going to do a 15 or 20 minute film. I was going to say, here’s this beautiful place with a vibrant community but it also has this alternative community killing themselves one after another. I was going to ask questions of all people across the spectrum, but it changed quite quickly from that into what it is.
GARRETH. The main figures in the film; were they people you had been in touch with over the years, or people you got back in touch with specifically for filming?
JEZ. Cass I’d always been tentatively in touch with. The others mostly I hadn’t. I knew of them but they were not old friends.
GARRETH. This is one of things I’m interested in – watching the film you feel that there is probably an awful lot more footage – things you haven’t included, all kinds of people we don’t see…
JEZ. I had around 100 hours of footage!
GARRETH. Wow. So making Cass the focus, did that happen in the edit?
JEZ. No, I kind of knew. Cass was kind of a rock rebel when we were teenagers and I knew he had charisma. He also had looks, which were gone by the time I met him again. But those things were in my mind and I knew he knew everybody.
GARRETH. I must admit, that moment when you’re on the train back to Hebdon and Cass produces that can of special brew, it’s just heartbreaking.
JEZ. Oh yeah, yeah.
GARRETH. One of the things that interests me about documentary film makers is that question of wanting to make the film and watch this stuff happen but also the need possibly to intervene. Is that a difficult line to walk?
JEZ. I think if they hadn’t been my mates historically it might have been more difficult. I don’t know my audience when I’m filming, but my mates are there – they’re in front of me. I’ve done a lot of martial arts and I came across a samurai saying, I know this sounds quite juvenile to be quoting samurai, but the saying is: “You can hear of a danger and run away, but you can’t see it and run away.” I felt like that. When I wasn’t in Hebdon it wasn’t my responsibility but once I was there and filming, I felt almost ashamed to just point a camera at people who needed a hand. And I wouldn’t be able to live with being ashamed if I can do something about it.
GARRETH. Absolutely. One of the things that’s so interesting about the film is how much you feature in it, and, purely from the perspective of just watching the film, there’s a great moment later on when you say, “I have to just walk away. I’m trying to help you, I can’t do anymore.” But this is what you’re saying, you still can’t walk away really because you’re there, you’re watching it and there’s that sense of responsibility.
JEZ. Yeah, for me my responsibility is to the people there but I do have a responsibility to the film too so that’s part of the difficulty of those decisions and I’m more their friend than a film maker but I’m still a film maker. In that last scene when I’m saying I’m going to walk away, if I hadn’t had a camera [in that scene] I’d have walked away a long time before.
GARRETH. That’s very honest.
JEZ. In the end, after that scene, I put him [Cass] in a car and drove him to the house of a person he was with many years ago.
GARRETH. That has to be incredibly frustrating though too – you’re there and trying to help and, okay you’re making a film, but, you’re actually there and trying to help. Was there a part of you that experienced that frustration? Or was it just an overwhelming sense of sadness about the whole thing?
JEZ. It’s an overwhelming sense of urgency more than anything. I mean, I don’t know if you know but, since I stopped filming, five of the people I filmed have died.
GARRETH. I didn’t know that, no.
JEZ. Yeah, died of overdoses. I hate to say this but it’s not going to stay at five. But yeah – of course there’s frustration. To be honest with you, in that scene, it was my fucking chips and mushy peas he ate! You traipse around following people for 15 hours a day – it’s November and you’re cold, you’re hungry, you’re knackered, you have a 30 pound camera on your back, you can’t sit down - and then finally you go and get some chips. And it happened so many times, I’d go get some chips and there’d be somebody totally muntered! Staggering through the streets as if they’re about to die and I use that expression completely seriously, “as if they’re about to die.” And I’d go, “Have a chip. Oh fuck it, have ‘em all.” And it’s a joke in a sense but the frustration in that day was that. I wasn’t even supposed to be there. I only went there to wish Di a Happy Birthday. I always have my camera with me but I had no idea Cass was there. And the truth is all that sadness and frustration and urgency was built up over that day and at that last minute, I was just so annoyed.
GARRETH. At that moment, when you found out Cass was there, what went through your mind?
(The day of the scene in question, Jez thought Cass was in London going through rehab, not back in Hebdon getting pissed.)
JEZ. I didn’t believe it. I genuinely didn’t believe it. That’s why [in the film] the guy who saw Cass tells me the make of his car, because he could see I didn’t believe him. I hoped Cass could come, like he did before, and not drink, but he didn’t. He came and he fucking hammered himself that weekend, you see it in the film…
GARRETH. I was going to say, he’s doing pretty badly at that point!
JEZ. Apparently the next day he got worse. His mate put him on a bus back to London and he got chucked out of his home which is the phone calls you hear in the end credits. He got fucking chucked out. Sorry about all the swearing!
GARRETH. Not at all. Do you know where he is now?
JEZ. Yeah, I speak to him every other week. He phoned me the other day and said, “Jez I think my head is swelling up.” I said to him, “Why Cass? Whats up?” And he said, “I was walking along and I heard someone shout “Cass!” and I turned around and there were two women sitting in a silver BMW. They got out and told me they had seen the film at the ICA and they thought I was right lovely and I’m starting to feel like a superstar!” He is drinking again, but that pattern is fairly normal. It’s quite normal, for people who succeed in getting off alcohol, to take four or five attempts. Just because he’s gone on and off it a few times doesn’t mean he won’t make it.
GARRETH. So when it comes down to it, do you have an explanation as to why this is concentrated in one small place?
JEZ. The people living that life think it’s normal. And I did. It took me until Emma’s death to convince myself that it’s not normal. Since finishing the film I’ve come across it people saying again and again, “I thought it was normal. Isn’t it the same everywhere?” And you have to say, “NO IT’S NOT!” My mate who was too shy to be in the film asked the same. My mate from uni stood up and said, “I don’t know anyone who has died from drugs or alcohol, I’m not sure I know anyone who has died under the age of 40.” My Hebdon mate was shocked because he knew about 30 people who had died. And a few months after that conversation, his own nephew hanged himself.
GARRETH. Oh God…
JEZ. Yeah. In the film when I say I’m afraid of the phone, it’s because [all this] was happening – getting texts or calls in the night. Imagine, you get a text to tell someone that their friend has just died – that’s how commonplace it was. And when it’s normal, it becomes an option, if you see what I mean.
GARRETH. That’s interesting. I mean, if I’m in the park drinking, or doing drugs or whatever – if that’s my lifestyle then I can kind of understand that becoming my normality. And people dying as a result of that, well it‘s sad but that’s what happens. It’s when so many people actively take their own lives… to my mind, I start to think that there’s a degree of awareness in that, that I have to get out and so I kill myself. It seems more active than just sitting in the park slowly drinking yourself to death…
JEZ. Cass says that, around here you either kill yourself or you die anyway. It is that thing, it’s ingrained in their unconscious, and it just seems like it’s par for the course. It’s simply how it is.
GARRETH. And there’s also a very strange disconnect between that life and the people watching it – two different worlds right beside each other. Because it’s very visible – it’s right there for everyone to see.
JEZ. Oh it is. Yards from each other.
GARRETH. And is there any sense then of what the rest of Hebdon feels about what’s going on across the street?
JEZ. They tolerate it. By the way, the film is a sugar coated version of what goes on there.
GARRETH. Really?!
JEZ. There are much worse things going on than you see in the film.
GARRETH. Can I ask…?
Long pause.
JEZ. No, I don’t think so.
GARRETH. Okay, fair enough.
JEZ. But there’s tolerance to a lot of things and they [the people watching] don’t mind if one or two of these people die. They think that we all make our choices and they are living out theirs. I’m not going to judge or criticise them for that. It’s not my way of doing things. It’s normal for these people, for everyone in the town. I have a mate who wouldn’t touch the drugs that the others use, he’s friends with them but he wouldn’t go near them and HE thinks it’s normal. And the suicides, as far as I can tell, aren’t really connected with the drugs. It’s like you said earlier, it’s an active exit strategy rather than a passive one.
Checks his watch…
Oops, I better go now…
GARRETH. Sure. Thanks so much for talking to me, it’s been really interesting.
JEZ. Not at all. Thanks.
A quick ending to a brilliant interview. Check out Shed Your Tears And Walk Away, it‘s a tough but excellent film.
Check out my review here first as it will help illuminate the people and scenes we end up talking about.
http://eggmagmovies.blogspot.com/2010/06/shed-your-tears-and-walk-away-review.html
This is a slightly longer version than the one on Eggmag's main website. Enjoy!
GARRETH. When you first left Hebdon Bridge when you were young, was there a problem then and were you aware of it?
JEZ. Yeah I’d say there was. Drugs were around, but because I was growing up there and nowhere else, I had a sense that it was unusual but I didn’t know – I couldn’t be sure. I had a year off before uni when I went travelling and got more of a sense that my experience in Hebdon was unusual. But also my next door neighbour had attempted suicide when I was about 16. Another friend committed suicide, I knew of another lad who committed suicide. But I actually became more aware when I got to university and experiences there showed me that actually most people didn’t take drugs – I didn’t take drugs.
GARRETH. That’s interesting because a lot of the time it’s the other way around. You go to university and this world opens up of alcohol and drugs…
JEZ. Well that’s what happened to some of my friends but I’d quit drinking by then, I quit drinking when I was 17.
GARRETH. How come? As a product of growing up in Hebdon?
JEZ. No, I was always terrified of drugs and addiction. I was also heavily involved in karate, I was quite sporty and I just made a twat of myself drinking one night and thought I’m not doing that anymore. A couple of friends had gone on a health kick and I joined in but took it a little further by quitting drinking.
Then, a friend came to me and said, “Can I ask you a personal question?” I said she could and with some trepidation she said, “A mutual friend told me you know someone who tried to commit suicide.” I just laughed and she looked incredibly shocked. I thought it was a wind up but it wasn’t. A friend of hers had attempted suicide and she wanted to talk to someone who had had that experience. So I said I didn’t mean to offend her, it’s just that I know a lot of people who have done that. And I started to get more of an awareness [of the problem] than I had when I was living at home.
GARRETH. You mean, being able to look back and say there is actually something seriously wrong?
JEZ. Yeah. Everyone at university was Southern, middle class and from private education. Whereas I was from a working class comprehensive school so there were differences and I didn’t know how much to attribute to the fact that we were from completely different backgrounds, or how much of it was specifically Hebdon. And then I made trips back to Hebdon and I saw my peers taking crack or whatever. It was gradual, but more people died or committed suicide, and really at the start of the film when Emma [School friend Of Jez] died I still hadn’t moved my perception to the fact that there is definitely something different there. So I did some research and it was then I decided I must make the film.
GARRETH. So then, when you started the film, did you have a particular agenda or did you find what you wanted as you were filming it?
JEZ. I went there to ask some questions in a journalistic way and I was only going to do a 15 or 20 minute film. I was going to say, here’s this beautiful place with a vibrant community but it also has this alternative community killing themselves one after another. I was going to ask questions of all people across the spectrum, but it changed quite quickly from that into what it is.
GARRETH. The main figures in the film; were they people you had been in touch with over the years, or people you got back in touch with specifically for filming?
JEZ. Cass I’d always been tentatively in touch with. The others mostly I hadn’t. I knew of them but they were not old friends.
GARRETH. This is one of things I’m interested in – watching the film you feel that there is probably an awful lot more footage – things you haven’t included, all kinds of people we don’t see…
JEZ. I had around 100 hours of footage!
GARRETH. Wow. So making Cass the focus, did that happen in the edit?
JEZ. No, I kind of knew. Cass was kind of a rock rebel when we were teenagers and I knew he had charisma. He also had looks, which were gone by the time I met him again. But those things were in my mind and I knew he knew everybody.
GARRETH. I must admit, that moment when you’re on the train back to Hebdon and Cass produces that can of special brew, it’s just heartbreaking.
JEZ. Oh yeah, yeah.
GARRETH. One of the things that interests me about documentary film makers is that question of wanting to make the film and watch this stuff happen but also the need possibly to intervene. Is that a difficult line to walk?
JEZ. I think if they hadn’t been my mates historically it might have been more difficult. I don’t know my audience when I’m filming, but my mates are there – they’re in front of me. I’ve done a lot of martial arts and I came across a samurai saying, I know this sounds quite juvenile to be quoting samurai, but the saying is: “You can hear of a danger and run away, but you can’t see it and run away.” I felt like that. When I wasn’t in Hebdon it wasn’t my responsibility but once I was there and filming, I felt almost ashamed to just point a camera at people who needed a hand. And I wouldn’t be able to live with being ashamed if I can do something about it.
GARRETH. Absolutely. One of the things that’s so interesting about the film is how much you feature in it, and, purely from the perspective of just watching the film, there’s a great moment later on when you say, “I have to just walk away. I’m trying to help you, I can’t do anymore.” But this is what you’re saying, you still can’t walk away really because you’re there, you’re watching it and there’s that sense of responsibility.
JEZ. Yeah, for me my responsibility is to the people there but I do have a responsibility to the film too so that’s part of the difficulty of those decisions and I’m more their friend than a film maker but I’m still a film maker. In that last scene when I’m saying I’m going to walk away, if I hadn’t had a camera [in that scene] I’d have walked away a long time before.
GARRETH. That’s very honest.
JEZ. In the end, after that scene, I put him [Cass] in a car and drove him to the house of a person he was with many years ago.
GARRETH. That has to be incredibly frustrating though too – you’re there and trying to help and, okay you’re making a film, but, you’re actually there and trying to help. Was there a part of you that experienced that frustration? Or was it just an overwhelming sense of sadness about the whole thing?
JEZ. It’s an overwhelming sense of urgency more than anything. I mean, I don’t know if you know but, since I stopped filming, five of the people I filmed have died.
GARRETH. I didn’t know that, no.
JEZ. Yeah, died of overdoses. I hate to say this but it’s not going to stay at five. But yeah – of course there’s frustration. To be honest with you, in that scene, it was my fucking chips and mushy peas he ate! You traipse around following people for 15 hours a day – it’s November and you’re cold, you’re hungry, you’re knackered, you have a 30 pound camera on your back, you can’t sit down - and then finally you go and get some chips. And it happened so many times, I’d go get some chips and there’d be somebody totally muntered! Staggering through the streets as if they’re about to die and I use that expression completely seriously, “as if they’re about to die.” And I’d go, “Have a chip. Oh fuck it, have ‘em all.” And it’s a joke in a sense but the frustration in that day was that. I wasn’t even supposed to be there. I only went there to wish Di a Happy Birthday. I always have my camera with me but I had no idea Cass was there. And the truth is all that sadness and frustration and urgency was built up over that day and at that last minute, I was just so annoyed.
GARRETH. At that moment, when you found out Cass was there, what went through your mind?
(The day of the scene in question, Jez thought Cass was in London going through rehab, not back in Hebdon getting pissed.)
JEZ. I didn’t believe it. I genuinely didn’t believe it. That’s why [in the film] the guy who saw Cass tells me the make of his car, because he could see I didn’t believe him. I hoped Cass could come, like he did before, and not drink, but he didn’t. He came and he fucking hammered himself that weekend, you see it in the film…
GARRETH. I was going to say, he’s doing pretty badly at that point!
JEZ. Apparently the next day he got worse. His mate put him on a bus back to London and he got chucked out of his home which is the phone calls you hear in the end credits. He got fucking chucked out. Sorry about all the swearing!
GARRETH. Not at all. Do you know where he is now?
JEZ. Yeah, I speak to him every other week. He phoned me the other day and said, “Jez I think my head is swelling up.” I said to him, “Why Cass? Whats up?” And he said, “I was walking along and I heard someone shout “Cass!” and I turned around and there were two women sitting in a silver BMW. They got out and told me they had seen the film at the ICA and they thought I was right lovely and I’m starting to feel like a superstar!” He is drinking again, but that pattern is fairly normal. It’s quite normal, for people who succeed in getting off alcohol, to take four or five attempts. Just because he’s gone on and off it a few times doesn’t mean he won’t make it.
GARRETH. So when it comes down to it, do you have an explanation as to why this is concentrated in one small place?
JEZ. The people living that life think it’s normal. And I did. It took me until Emma’s death to convince myself that it’s not normal. Since finishing the film I’ve come across it people saying again and again, “I thought it was normal. Isn’t it the same everywhere?” And you have to say, “NO IT’S NOT!” My mate who was too shy to be in the film asked the same. My mate from uni stood up and said, “I don’t know anyone who has died from drugs or alcohol, I’m not sure I know anyone who has died under the age of 40.” My Hebdon mate was shocked because he knew about 30 people who had died. And a few months after that conversation, his own nephew hanged himself.
GARRETH. Oh God…
JEZ. Yeah. In the film when I say I’m afraid of the phone, it’s because [all this] was happening – getting texts or calls in the night. Imagine, you get a text to tell someone that their friend has just died – that’s how commonplace it was. And when it’s normal, it becomes an option, if you see what I mean.
GARRETH. That’s interesting. I mean, if I’m in the park drinking, or doing drugs or whatever – if that’s my lifestyle then I can kind of understand that becoming my normality. And people dying as a result of that, well it‘s sad but that’s what happens. It’s when so many people actively take their own lives… to my mind, I start to think that there’s a degree of awareness in that, that I have to get out and so I kill myself. It seems more active than just sitting in the park slowly drinking yourself to death…
JEZ. Cass says that, around here you either kill yourself or you die anyway. It is that thing, it’s ingrained in their unconscious, and it just seems like it’s par for the course. It’s simply how it is.
GARRETH. And there’s also a very strange disconnect between that life and the people watching it – two different worlds right beside each other. Because it’s very visible – it’s right there for everyone to see.
JEZ. Oh it is. Yards from each other.
GARRETH. And is there any sense then of what the rest of Hebdon feels about what’s going on across the street?
JEZ. They tolerate it. By the way, the film is a sugar coated version of what goes on there.
GARRETH. Really?!
JEZ. There are much worse things going on than you see in the film.
GARRETH. Can I ask…?
Long pause.
JEZ. No, I don’t think so.
GARRETH. Okay, fair enough.
JEZ. But there’s tolerance to a lot of things and they [the people watching] don’t mind if one or two of these people die. They think that we all make our choices and they are living out theirs. I’m not going to judge or criticise them for that. It’s not my way of doing things. It’s normal for these people, for everyone in the town. I have a mate who wouldn’t touch the drugs that the others use, he’s friends with them but he wouldn’t go near them and HE thinks it’s normal. And the suicides, as far as I can tell, aren’t really connected with the drugs. It’s like you said earlier, it’s an active exit strategy rather than a passive one.
Checks his watch…
Oops, I better go now…
GARRETH. Sure. Thanks so much for talking to me, it’s been really interesting.
JEZ. Not at all. Thanks.
A quick ending to a brilliant interview. Check out Shed Your Tears And Walk Away, it‘s a tough but excellent film.
Thursday 5 August 2010
A Quick Post On 3-D.
I ended my Toy Story 3 review with a quick little sentence: "Oh, and the 3-D does absolutely nothing." A friend of mine posted a comment, leaving a link to Mark Kermode's blog in which he reads out a letter he received from the "3-D Guy" as Kermode calls him, who oversaw the 3-D conversion on Toy Story 3. The long and the short of it is that Kermode had said that he forgot he was watching a 3-D film while he watched Toy Story 3. He meant that he forgot it because he was so engrossed in the story and characters. The 3-D guy argues that, you don't notice the 3-D in the same way that you don't notice most of the music, the camera's focal length and the million other things that go into the making of a film, all of which operate on your subconscious to create a mood, evoke an emotion or help tell the story. Pixar's goal with 3-D is to have one or two "wow" moments but overall the 3-D should help create a mood, evoke an emotion or help tell the story. It's an interesting idea, particularly to a 3-D sceptic.
My feeling on 3-D is this. Watching a bad film, the 3-D helps because it's a distraction, it's something to take your mind off wretched characters, dreadful stories or whatever else is wrong with the film. Watching a good film in 3-D, the 3-D doesn't really add anything because the experience is satisfying as it is. This viewpoint clearly emphasises story above everything else and if the story is intact and the narrative working as it should, then 3-D is exposed as the sideshow it really is. But is it possible that 3-D can work as subtly as the other technical elements of the film? Several directors have pointed out that the very phrase "3-D" is something of a misnomer because every film you have ever watched has created depth of image in its many frames. Could Citizen Kane for example use depth to any greater degree? Taking this as truth, I don't think I really buy the idea that 3-D in its newest incarnation is another story-telling technique because depth of frame (or indeed lack thereof) has always been a story-telling technique. That Pixar emphasis story and characters is well documented and clearly evident in their films and I have no doubt that their brief with 3-D conversion is exactly as the chap who contacted Mark Kermode described it. I simply can't get over the fact that it is a gimick, a way of selling tickets at higher prices and a way for studios to think they're combating piracy.
I will get around to writing my Inception piece but one of the things that film demonstrates is that a film can enter the zeitgeist, create a conversation AND make a tonne of money without forcing people to put on the glasses and watch it in the third dimension. The fact that films have done that since their creation seems to have been forgotten. Give people a reason to go to the cinema and they will go. Give people a compelling story, a hook, a concept, interesting ideas, on top of a visual experience, and they will go. People want to be part of something and if that something is a sporting event, Live Aid, a demonstration at Trafalgar Square or that film that everyone is talking about, they will do what they have to to be part of it. Sure there will be those who think that downloading is enough, everyone hates the queues, the popcorn crunchers, the mobile phone talkers but films are shared experiences and, even though you don't have much control over who you're sharing it with, people still want that feeling of being in it together, of walking into the daylight chatting with whoever they're with about what they've just seen as everyone around them does likewise. I have no intention of ever sitting through a Twilight film but even these films attract their audiences because people want to see those characters.
This is what cinema at its best is. And it doesn't take the 3-D fad to accomplish it. So sorry Mr 3-D guy. I've nothing but admiration and respect for the work you do and it must be said that the 3-D on Toy Story 3 is very impressive; none of your hastily and shoddily done conversions to make a quick buck here. I think I can say with relative certainty that the reason I forgot about the 3-D was not because it blended in with the rest of the film making process, it's because the story and its characters were working so well. 3-D is here to stay. That much is certain. Equally certain for me is the fact that cinema, like literature, like theatre, like television comedy and drama, tells stories. And it's the stories that make me feel like what I'm watching is real, that what I'm watching matters , that the people I'm watching it happen to are real and that it all has consequences. It's the stories that achieve this. Not the artificiality of making me think the space it's happening in is all around me.
Thanks to Jon for leaving a comment and posting the link to Mr Kermode's blog.
My feeling on 3-D is this. Watching a bad film, the 3-D helps because it's a distraction, it's something to take your mind off wretched characters, dreadful stories or whatever else is wrong with the film. Watching a good film in 3-D, the 3-D doesn't really add anything because the experience is satisfying as it is. This viewpoint clearly emphasises story above everything else and if the story is intact and the narrative working as it should, then 3-D is exposed as the sideshow it really is. But is it possible that 3-D can work as subtly as the other technical elements of the film? Several directors have pointed out that the very phrase "3-D" is something of a misnomer because every film you have ever watched has created depth of image in its many frames. Could Citizen Kane for example use depth to any greater degree? Taking this as truth, I don't think I really buy the idea that 3-D in its newest incarnation is another story-telling technique because depth of frame (or indeed lack thereof) has always been a story-telling technique. That Pixar emphasis story and characters is well documented and clearly evident in their films and I have no doubt that their brief with 3-D conversion is exactly as the chap who contacted Mark Kermode described it. I simply can't get over the fact that it is a gimick, a way of selling tickets at higher prices and a way for studios to think they're combating piracy.
I will get around to writing my Inception piece but one of the things that film demonstrates is that a film can enter the zeitgeist, create a conversation AND make a tonne of money without forcing people to put on the glasses and watch it in the third dimension. The fact that films have done that since their creation seems to have been forgotten. Give people a reason to go to the cinema and they will go. Give people a compelling story, a hook, a concept, interesting ideas, on top of a visual experience, and they will go. People want to be part of something and if that something is a sporting event, Live Aid, a demonstration at Trafalgar Square or that film that everyone is talking about, they will do what they have to to be part of it. Sure there will be those who think that downloading is enough, everyone hates the queues, the popcorn crunchers, the mobile phone talkers but films are shared experiences and, even though you don't have much control over who you're sharing it with, people still want that feeling of being in it together, of walking into the daylight chatting with whoever they're with about what they've just seen as everyone around them does likewise. I have no intention of ever sitting through a Twilight film but even these films attract their audiences because people want to see those characters.
This is what cinema at its best is. And it doesn't take the 3-D fad to accomplish it. So sorry Mr 3-D guy. I've nothing but admiration and respect for the work you do and it must be said that the 3-D on Toy Story 3 is very impressive; none of your hastily and shoddily done conversions to make a quick buck here. I think I can say with relative certainty that the reason I forgot about the 3-D was not because it blended in with the rest of the film making process, it's because the story and its characters were working so well. 3-D is here to stay. That much is certain. Equally certain for me is the fact that cinema, like literature, like theatre, like television comedy and drama, tells stories. And it's the stories that make me feel like what I'm watching is real, that what I'm watching matters , that the people I'm watching it happen to are real and that it all has consequences. It's the stories that achieve this. Not the artificiality of making me think the space it's happening in is all around me.
Thanks to Jon for leaving a comment and posting the link to Mr Kermode's blog.
Wednesday 4 August 2010
The A Team Review
I was about to launch into a full scale review but you know what? I can't be bothered. The film is terrible. I wasn't expecting a classic. For that matter, I wasn't even expecting a good film. I did think that maybe there might be some fun moments, some good action, it might be a laugh. It isn't. At all.
2/10
Friday sees the release of another throwback action movie that IS good fun. I was at a press screening last night but I'm embargoed from talking about it for a few days.
Let's just say that if you'd like to EXPEND some energy and you're ABLE to See a film at the cinema next weekend then you might want to check this film out...
It's like the enigma machine all over again.
2/10
Friday sees the release of another throwback action movie that IS good fun. I was at a press screening last night but I'm embargoed from talking about it for a few days.
Let's just say that if you'd like to EXPEND some energy and you're ABLE to See a film at the cinema next weekend then you might want to check this film out...
It's like the enigma machine all over again.
Thursday 29 July 2010
Toy Story 3 Review
I’m snatching a few minutes to write this review as it’s late. It’s about to be late AND hurried. I’m nothing if not professional folks.
Toy Story 3 comes eleven years after the second instalment in what is currently Pixar’s only franchise, although with Cars 2 and Monsters Inc 2, this is about to change. Toy Story 2 is one of the great sequels. It belongs to that rare group of sequels that surpass their originals. Yes Jessie is a bit annoying (culminating in her song that is rip-your-ears-off irritating) but Toy Story 2 does what all great sequels do. It furthers the story and the world, introduces new characters without sidelining the old ones and allows those old characters to grow in new ways, all the while remembering what made the original so successful in the first place that it demanded a sequel at all. Toy Story 3 is very, very good. If this were number two, there would be no need for any qualification. The problem for me is that it covers very similar ground to the second film and, as a result, struggles to justify its existence in a way that is pretty much unheard of for a Pixar film. That probably sounds like a very begrudging criticism, it certainly feels that way typing it. But I simply can’t get away from the nagging feeling that for the first time Pixar are chasing commercial success more than they are striving to make a great film. I will immediately qualify THAT (keep up here folks; this is the Inception of film reviews. And we’re only in level 2 yet.) They DO make a great film. Everything you love about Pixar, warmth, wit, character, story, are all present and accounted for. But Toy Story 3 is the first in a run of sequels and, though it might be very good, the fact that it’s not really covering new ground, or telling a story that is particularly different to the second, gives you a slightly nagging feeling.
The threat posed in Toy Story 2 that their owner Andy will one day grow up and outgrow his toys has come to fruition in number 3. We join the gang trying desperately to get the attention of a teenage Andy who has to start making choices about which of his toys he is going to put into the attic (from the toys’ perspective, the equivalent of a retirement home) which will go to the jumble sale and which will ended up in the dreaded trash bin. Through a series of plot machinations the toys end up at the Sunnyside Day Care facility which at first seems like a haven the toys never dreamed possible but quickly becomes a nightmare they fear they will never escape from. The toys hatch a plan to extricate themselves from their situation as well as create a place for themselves in the world once again.
The best thing about Toy Story 3 is the way it riffs on being a prison film, a kind of Cool Hand Luke meets The Great Escape but for toys. All prison movie clichés are here and are often hilariously adapted for the PG requirements of the genre and the execution of the toys' break out of Sunnyside is the highlight of the film and, for my money, one of the best set pieces in the Pixar canon. Pixar still has the monopoly on walking that fine line between keeping the kids entertained and having enough in there to make the adults laugh too and Toy Story 3 is very, very funny. Michael Keaton as the very metrosexual Ken is the comedy highlight of the film. The discovery of Buzz’s reset button, the omnipresent drumming monkey CCTV monitor and Mr Potato Head having to improvise a body for his eyes, ears and appendages are amongst the other many comedy highlights that had children and adults alike laughing in the screening I saw. Ned Beatty as Lotso, the bear in charge of Sunnyside, does great work and has an interesting back story of his own. The film is surprisingly dark and scary at times and Lotso's right hand man, a weird, creepy as hell baby doll, would not be out of place in a David Lynch dream sequence. Also, the ending of the film finds a nice way to resolve the central dilemma that is sentimental in the right way. Buzz and Woody end up somewhat sidelined and this, for me, is the most telling problem with the film. The characters have nowhere to go now. They simply have to be themselves in a new adventure and while it's very well done (once again the plotting of the film is superb. Seriously, anyone who wants to learn about screenwriting should watch Pixar films for the elegance of their plotting) it doesn't feel like it's enough.
I want to stress again that this is by no means a bad review and, by the way, I think the film is way better than, for example Ratatouille or the much loved Wall-E which is much more problematic story-wise. I think the problem though comes down to ambition and while Wall-E might not work for me, it really is trying to accomplish something interesting. Last year’s Up tried to accomplish something and succeeded, being as it is a nearly flawless film. Judged in those terms, Toy Story 3 is kind of treading water a bit, made worse by the fact that we’re now in a run of sequels. The simple fact is that Pixar films are judged by a higher standard, a standard they set for themselves. Toy Story 3 is smart, laugh out loud funny and a great time at the cinema. It just lacks the X-Factor we’ve come to expect (and probably demand) from the very best of Pixar’s output.
7/10
Oh, and the 3-D adds absolutely nothing!
Toy Story 3 comes eleven years after the second instalment in what is currently Pixar’s only franchise, although with Cars 2 and Monsters Inc 2, this is about to change. Toy Story 2 is one of the great sequels. It belongs to that rare group of sequels that surpass their originals. Yes Jessie is a bit annoying (culminating in her song that is rip-your-ears-off irritating) but Toy Story 2 does what all great sequels do. It furthers the story and the world, introduces new characters without sidelining the old ones and allows those old characters to grow in new ways, all the while remembering what made the original so successful in the first place that it demanded a sequel at all. Toy Story 3 is very, very good. If this were number two, there would be no need for any qualification. The problem for me is that it covers very similar ground to the second film and, as a result, struggles to justify its existence in a way that is pretty much unheard of for a Pixar film. That probably sounds like a very begrudging criticism, it certainly feels that way typing it. But I simply can’t get away from the nagging feeling that for the first time Pixar are chasing commercial success more than they are striving to make a great film. I will immediately qualify THAT (keep up here folks; this is the Inception of film reviews. And we’re only in level 2 yet.) They DO make a great film. Everything you love about Pixar, warmth, wit, character, story, are all present and accounted for. But Toy Story 3 is the first in a run of sequels and, though it might be very good, the fact that it’s not really covering new ground, or telling a story that is particularly different to the second, gives you a slightly nagging feeling.
The threat posed in Toy Story 2 that their owner Andy will one day grow up and outgrow his toys has come to fruition in number 3. We join the gang trying desperately to get the attention of a teenage Andy who has to start making choices about which of his toys he is going to put into the attic (from the toys’ perspective, the equivalent of a retirement home) which will go to the jumble sale and which will ended up in the dreaded trash bin. Through a series of plot machinations the toys end up at the Sunnyside Day Care facility which at first seems like a haven the toys never dreamed possible but quickly becomes a nightmare they fear they will never escape from. The toys hatch a plan to extricate themselves from their situation as well as create a place for themselves in the world once again.
The best thing about Toy Story 3 is the way it riffs on being a prison film, a kind of Cool Hand Luke meets The Great Escape but for toys. All prison movie clichés are here and are often hilariously adapted for the PG requirements of the genre and the execution of the toys' break out of Sunnyside is the highlight of the film and, for my money, one of the best set pieces in the Pixar canon. Pixar still has the monopoly on walking that fine line between keeping the kids entertained and having enough in there to make the adults laugh too and Toy Story 3 is very, very funny. Michael Keaton as the very metrosexual Ken is the comedy highlight of the film. The discovery of Buzz’s reset button, the omnipresent drumming monkey CCTV monitor and Mr Potato Head having to improvise a body for his eyes, ears and appendages are amongst the other many comedy highlights that had children and adults alike laughing in the screening I saw. Ned Beatty as Lotso, the bear in charge of Sunnyside, does great work and has an interesting back story of his own. The film is surprisingly dark and scary at times and Lotso's right hand man, a weird, creepy as hell baby doll, would not be out of place in a David Lynch dream sequence. Also, the ending of the film finds a nice way to resolve the central dilemma that is sentimental in the right way. Buzz and Woody end up somewhat sidelined and this, for me, is the most telling problem with the film. The characters have nowhere to go now. They simply have to be themselves in a new adventure and while it's very well done (once again the plotting of the film is superb. Seriously, anyone who wants to learn about screenwriting should watch Pixar films for the elegance of their plotting) it doesn't feel like it's enough.
I want to stress again that this is by no means a bad review and, by the way, I think the film is way better than, for example Ratatouille or the much loved Wall-E which is much more problematic story-wise. I think the problem though comes down to ambition and while Wall-E might not work for me, it really is trying to accomplish something interesting. Last year’s Up tried to accomplish something and succeeded, being as it is a nearly flawless film. Judged in those terms, Toy Story 3 is kind of treading water a bit, made worse by the fact that we’re now in a run of sequels. The simple fact is that Pixar films are judged by a higher standard, a standard they set for themselves. Toy Story 3 is smart, laugh out loud funny and a great time at the cinema. It just lacks the X-Factor we’ve come to expect (and probably demand) from the very best of Pixar’s output.
7/10
Oh, and the 3-D adds absolutely nothing!
Tuesday 20 July 2010
Inception Review
I really want to talk about Inception… But it’s important to know as little as possible going in. So here’s what I’m going to do. This review is going to be short and sweet. And then in a couple of weeks I’ll write a few thoughts about the film that will go into some spoilery detail about the story as there really is a lot to talk about.
The long and the short of it is that Inception really delivers. It’s an intelligent, exciting, thought provoking film, utterly unique amongst modern Blockbusters. Slightly overlong perhaps and I’m not sure it’s the instant miracle, modern classic, solution to life’s problems some have made out. Also much has been made of Nolan’s slightly cold, distant approach to his stories in the past and many of the reviews have pointed to the warmth and humanity in Dom Cobb’s (Leonardo DiCaprio's) journey in this film. This is actually the weakest stuff for me. Plot wise, story wise and ideas wise it’s absolutely great, but I never really felt anything for the characters and their story.
But Christopher Nolan has demonstrated once again that he is a great film maker with great ideas. His central concept here, entering people’s subconscious through their dreams is great but to put that in the milieu of industrial espionage is a stroke of genius and the film plays like a heist thriller with Cobb assembling his team so that, rather than stealing an idea, they can carry through inception, planting an idea in a person’s mind. We get an opening heist to bring us into the world, the assembling and training of the team, which does go on a little long. But the last hour or so is the heist itself and once this begins it really doesn’t let up. The dream world and its rules have been meticulously thought through and Nolan obeys his own internal logic at all times. The best part of this is how there are different levels of dreaming and what is happening in one level impacts upon the next. The high point of this is Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s zero gravity fight in a hotel corridor but that whole last hour, while maybe not being quite as tense as I’d hoped (or for that matter as James Newton Howard’s bombastic score wants you to think it is) is Hollywood at its best and Nolan utterly confident in what he is doing.
This is perhaps the most exciting thing about watching Inception. You get the sense that we are watching a film maker now at the peak of his powers. For all its faults I absolutely love The Dark Knight but much of what is wrong in that film is corrected here. I’ll return to The Dark Knight more often for the atmosphere and action and I’ll return to Inception more often for its ideas. How this film got made is a miracle because, while The Dark Knight is a Summer movie with a brain in its head and some good ideas, Inception is an ideas movie with some action in it released in the Summer.
Don’t misunderstand, there is plenty of action; that last hour is basically one, sustained action set piece. But it’s for its ideas that Inception should be credited. As with every good heist movie, once they start their plan it all goes wrong and watching the way the team improvises is incredibly impressive from a writing perspective. Nolan has set up the rules of the dream world and is now free to bend our expectations of them to provide the team ways out of their problems that are plausible, that never cheat and are utterly compelling.
This review was supposed to be short! Go into Inception prepared to do a little work, pay attention to it, and you’ll be utterly rewarded. And once you’ve seen it, let the debate begin about just what it all means. Inception is fantastic, deserves its hype and is a call to every other studio and film maker in Hollywood that this is what is possible with a large budget. And there is simply no excuse for bad storytelling in any films, including big budget ones. Roll on Batman 3!
8.5/10
The long and the short of it is that Inception really delivers. It’s an intelligent, exciting, thought provoking film, utterly unique amongst modern Blockbusters. Slightly overlong perhaps and I’m not sure it’s the instant miracle, modern classic, solution to life’s problems some have made out. Also much has been made of Nolan’s slightly cold, distant approach to his stories in the past and many of the reviews have pointed to the warmth and humanity in Dom Cobb’s (Leonardo DiCaprio's) journey in this film. This is actually the weakest stuff for me. Plot wise, story wise and ideas wise it’s absolutely great, but I never really felt anything for the characters and their story.
But Christopher Nolan has demonstrated once again that he is a great film maker with great ideas. His central concept here, entering people’s subconscious through their dreams is great but to put that in the milieu of industrial espionage is a stroke of genius and the film plays like a heist thriller with Cobb assembling his team so that, rather than stealing an idea, they can carry through inception, planting an idea in a person’s mind. We get an opening heist to bring us into the world, the assembling and training of the team, which does go on a little long. But the last hour or so is the heist itself and once this begins it really doesn’t let up. The dream world and its rules have been meticulously thought through and Nolan obeys his own internal logic at all times. The best part of this is how there are different levels of dreaming and what is happening in one level impacts upon the next. The high point of this is Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s zero gravity fight in a hotel corridor but that whole last hour, while maybe not being quite as tense as I’d hoped (or for that matter as James Newton Howard’s bombastic score wants you to think it is) is Hollywood at its best and Nolan utterly confident in what he is doing.
This is perhaps the most exciting thing about watching Inception. You get the sense that we are watching a film maker now at the peak of his powers. For all its faults I absolutely love The Dark Knight but much of what is wrong in that film is corrected here. I’ll return to The Dark Knight more often for the atmosphere and action and I’ll return to Inception more often for its ideas. How this film got made is a miracle because, while The Dark Knight is a Summer movie with a brain in its head and some good ideas, Inception is an ideas movie with some action in it released in the Summer.
Don’t misunderstand, there is plenty of action; that last hour is basically one, sustained action set piece. But it’s for its ideas that Inception should be credited. As with every good heist movie, once they start their plan it all goes wrong and watching the way the team improvises is incredibly impressive from a writing perspective. Nolan has set up the rules of the dream world and is now free to bend our expectations of them to provide the team ways out of their problems that are plausible, that never cheat and are utterly compelling.
This review was supposed to be short! Go into Inception prepared to do a little work, pay attention to it, and you’ll be utterly rewarded. And once you’ve seen it, let the debate begin about just what it all means. Inception is fantastic, deserves its hype and is a call to every other studio and film maker in Hollywood that this is what is possible with a large budget. And there is simply no excuse for bad storytelling in any films, including big budget ones. Roll on Batman 3!
8.5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)