Prime Time: Soul Survivors (2001)

I saw Soul Survivors when it first came out, when it hit the VHS rental market anyway, and I hated it. Even as a much younger horror movie fan, I saw it as something dull and tired. I never thought of it as a film I should revisit, but recently decided I should give it a second chance. After all, maybe I would respond more positively to it after years spent developing a tolerance for many bad movies. And writer-director Stephen Carpenter has been involved with other projects that I enjoy (including the wonderful Kindred). Damn me and my optimism. If anything, this was worse than I remembered.

I genuinely despair at the thought of even relating the plot here. A group of mopey young people just mope around, get into a car accident, and spend a lot more time moping around. This might not have been so bad if the cast didn’t include the lesser Affleck, the lesser Wilson, and the lesser Slayer, as well as a soundtrack and aesthetic that pretty much beats you over the head with how turn-of-the-21st-century it is.

If you wanted to be generous about Soul Survivors, not that I do, then you could accept the fact that it’s a very tame horror movie for teens who want to try out their first horror movie. It’s not scary, not gory, and the characters are almost all impossible to care about, but it’s a paddling pool for people to dip their toes into before they put on the water wings and start learning to swim, if they don’t mind the water temperature.

I don’t know what Carpenter was thinking though. He was either hampered by a studio wanting him to make the blandest and most predictable film possible, or he forgot every other movie made in the history of cinema and figured that he was making something cool and entertaining for teen viewers. There are episodes of “Goosebumps” and “Are You Afraid Of The Dark?” scarier than this. Not to deride those shows. I just mention those as their target demographic skews much younger.

The cast really don’t help at all. If I forget to mention anyone here then please know that it is because I forgot about them while the movie was playing. Melissa Sagemiller is the lead, and there’s probably a good reason why she hasn’t (as far as I’m aware) been front and centre of too many, or any, other major releases. She had a run of a few movies, her small amount of good luck was used up, and she’s now seen more often in various TV roles. Eliza Dushku, who was given the prime spot on the poster, has fared slightly better, with a couple of better movies under her belt, but I have never been a big fan of her presence. Luke Wilson purses his lips and looks sad-eyed, which is no stretch, Casey Affleck keeps appearing throughout the film (and I tend to hate him, but also, dammit, love some of his best performances . . . of which this is very much not one), and Wes Bentley is just about the only highlight, overpowering the weak script and direction with his essential Wes Bentleyness (aka the menacing doppelgänger of Donnie Darko). 

Some people out there will still have a soft spot for this, if only for the soundtrack, but I implore those people to leave this dead and buried, where it belongs. I can easily recommend them at least half a dozen movies that cover very similar territory in a much better way. When it comes to mainstream horror movies aimed at a teen audience, this is about as bad as you can get. Absolutely atrocious from start to finish, and please feel free to give me a slap if I ever start to wonder if I was too harsh on it.

2/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Bonus Review: Interstellar (2014)

It sounds like a cliche, it's the kind of thing that all fans seem to say at one point about their cinematic heroes, but I really wish Christopher Nolan would move back to the smaller movies that he showed so much promise with years ago. Because I DO really like the guy, he always puts moments onscreen that make for great cinema, but he's in danger of taking away every ounce of goodwill that I have left for him. Interstellar is his most unsatisfying movie yet. Like the wildly overpraised The Dark Knight Rises, it suffers from an excessive runtime, a selection of ideas that are never treated as well as they could be, and a real lack of actual entertainment value.

The place is Earth. It's the future. There have been wars. There are environmental problems that affect the growth of crops. It doesn't look good for the future of the human race. One man (Cooper, played by Matthew McConaughey) ends up piloting a spaceship on a mission that everyone hopes will provide a solution, or at least provide an alternative home for the general population. Cooper is accompanied on the mission by Brand (Anne Hathaway), Doyle (Wes Bentley), Romilly (David Gyasi), and a couple of smartass robots. As they venture further into their mission, travelling through a wormhole and dangerously close to a black hole, it soon becomes clear that the most important resource they have is one that they can do very little to manage: time.

Where to begin? Where, where, where? Perhaps I should start by clarifying that my biggest problems with Interstellar don't lie with the science, which many are quick to state is considered to be quite sound. I'm no scientist, so I'm not going to fight that fight, even if I have my doubts about some of the speculation. I will, however, say that the ideas presented here are never explored to anywhere near their full potential, which left this particular viewer frustrated and wishing that Nolan had at least created a film with the full courage of his convictions. He didn't. He sets up what could be an interesting tale of the human spirit flying into the unknown abyss of outer space and then simply neuters the whole thing. Which is a great shame.

Perhaps I'm skipping ahead. My first problems with this movie cropped up within the first few scenes. First of all, Nolan set up a world that I didn't believe in. An Earth blighted by such problems (no military, extra health issues, the potential for mass hunger) shouldn't, in my view, seem like our Earth as it is now, albeit with an extra coating of dust over everything. But this is the world that we're presented with. Then I started to get an idea, an inkling that I knew how things were going to pan out. This was within minutes of the movie starting, mind you. For a movie that clocks in at just under three hours, that's not a good thing. It's even worse when the whole thing plays out exactly as envisioned.

Are there ANY surprises? Yes. Well, it may be better to say that there are one or two decent diversions. I can't go into any more detail because they feature people and situations that you'll enjoy more if you have no advance notice. It's just a shame that those good moments are adrift in a sea of horribly manipulative codswallop, surprisingly lacklustre special effects, and an audio mix that ranks among the very worst I've had to endure from a blockbuster cinema release. Seriously, Hans Zimmer may have enjoyed being given so much screentime to score by Mr. Nolan, but there were times when I would have much preferred to hear what the main characters were actually saying. You may think I'm joking, but there were at least one or two moments when I strained to hear dialogue that was obscured by Zimmer's ruckus.

The film never falls below average, which is unsurprising when you consider just how good at the technical stuff Nolan is. He's also helped by a decent cast, all doing their best to distract viewers from the clumsier elements of the script. McConaughey continues his hot streak, giving a performance that distils all of the best of humanity into one strong-willed protagonist. Hathaway is also very good, somehow able to waver between supporting McConaughey and trying to equal him. Bentley and Gyasi may be given less to do, but both men acquit themselves capably. Michael Caine and John Lithgow both make the most of their supporting turns, while Jessica Chastain once again proves that she'll never stop ACTING her heart out to show you how hard she is ACTING. She could take some notes from Mackenzie Foy, a young actress who steals every scene that she's in.

Many people will love Interstellar. It seems that every film Nolan makes nowadays is able to find a large, loyal fanbase. Who wouldn't want such bankability? I certainly didn't love it, and there were many times when I didn't even like it. It's a mess. It never feels plausible, despite the science all being as accurate as possible (allegedly). It's massively self-indulgent. Worst of all, it never feels like great cinema, even as it clearly strives to prove that it is.

Maybe, just maybe, Christopher Nolan should come back down to Earth. And soon.

5/10

Here's the science part - http://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1415650031&sr=8-4&keywords=interstellar+movie

Underworld: Awakening (2012)

First of all, my overview of the preceding Underworld movies can be found here.

At the start of Underworld: Awakening the audience is told by Selene (Kate Beckinsale) about "the purge". Yes, humans finally discovered that there really were vampires and werewolves (aka lycans) and set about eradicating them. After telling the audience this information, Selene is then taken out of action and frozen. She ends up in a lab for many years. But the movie is called Underworld: Awakening so you may be able to guess that Selene doesn't stay frozen in the lab for the entire movie and when she gets out there are a few revelations.

If you enjoyed the first two Underworld movies then I can't think of any reason why you would dislike this one. It's more of the same and it's all done very well. Mans Marlind and Bjorn Stein share the directing duties and Len Wiseman (director of those first two movies) is one of the four people who helped to create the screenplay, which brings in a few new ideas and easily mixes them in with the familiar elements and style that fans of the movies have come to expect.

Beckinsale is the star of the show, once again all black leather and cat-like agility (is it getting hot in here or is it just me?) but there's a good supporting cast of players with the likes of Michael Ealy, Theo James, Kris Holden-Ried and Sandrine Holt doing a decent job. India Eisley is a very good young actress getting to play a very fun character and I was surprised to see Wes Bentley put in an uncredited cameo appearance. The most fun, however, comes from watching Stephen Rea and Charles Dance playing their parts. The two great actors appear to have a lot of fun while they play two very different characters.

The special effects are almost as good as they were in the second movie (which remains my favourite of the series so far) though there are definitely times when the CGI isn't quite up to the task, such as an otherwise enjoyable chase sequence involving Beckinsale, Eisley and Theo James trying to drive away from relentless lycans.

Overall, however, this is a bloody good time. The action feels as if it is non-stop, the visuals are cool, there is a nice helping of gore and bloodshed and the development of the characters this time around takes one or two interesting turns. Okay, it also feels very lightweight (thanks to the streamlined storyline and the runtime clocking in at about 85 minutes, despite the IMDb listing putting it at 88 mins, including the opening recap for newcomers) but it's blockbuster fun and that's all it wants to be. Mission accomplished.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Underworld-Awakening-Blu-ray-3D/dp/B0064YOWCI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1351073682&sr=8-2

The Hunger Games (2012)

Just when you think you can safely go along to the cinema without having to wade through fans of one teen-orientated cinematic juggernaut along comes another to assert itself as the new king of the hill. But, they all say, The Hunger Games is better than you think. It's full of more mature themes and better characters. It's darker and much better than any sparkly vampire movie. It's based on much better source material.

Well, I'll admit that there's some small degree of truth to that. However, The Hunger Games is still very much a watered down and sanitised film setting out to do little more than please the core demographic. In fact, I managed to convince my wife that the whole thing was nothing more than a metaphor for surviving high school (where popularity will get you through another day, competition is fierce, cliques develop and even if you survive to the end you'll find that you may have changed yourself beyond all recognition).

There was a great joke doing the rounds when the movie was released. It was a picture of the main characters from Pulp Fiction accompanied by the following caption: "You know what they call The Hunger Games in Paris? Battle Royale with cheese".

It's funny because it's true.

For those of you who have somehow avoided all of the hype and publicity, the plot runs something like this: It's the future and the rich and pampered stay in a lush capital city, miles and miles away from the outlying sectors that provide them with their essentials. Two youngsters (aged between 12 and 18) from each outlying sector are chosen each year to take part in The Hunger Games, a challenging experience that sees 24 enter a game zone and only 1 leaving alive. The Hunger Games is survived by those who are strong, smart and popular. Viewers remain mesmerised from start to finish.

I do have good things to say about the film. Most of the cast did a great job. Jennifer Lawrence in the main role once again shows why she's such a satisfying leading lady, Stanley Tucci is possibly one of the most dependable actors you can have in any movie, Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth are both young men doing well in roles that have them playing . . . . . young men, Wes Bentley lends great support to his scene-stealing facial hair and there are quirky, and enjoyable, performances from Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz, Donald Sutherland and a practically unrecognisable Elizabeth Banks.

The direction from Gary Ross (who also co-wrote the screenplay with novelist Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray) is okay but it also shows the work of a man unsure of just how to get the material up onscreen. This is not the same man who pleased us with Seabiscuit and, one of my particular favourites, Pleasantville. Nope, this is a man who knows that he has to cater to as wide an audience of teens as possible by glossing over subject matter that deserves far more mature treatment. The fact that the film doesn't quite make an enjoyable, cohesive whole (overediting is used to cover up the more violent moments, the heroine is almost completely passive for the first 3/4 of the movie and some of the plot holes seem pretty massive to me) actually makes me review it with a more charitable mindset. It's not a success but it tries as hard as it can to be all things to all people. Which we all know is a thankless, and impossible, task.

We also all know that there are many, MANY worse teen movies out there so if you end up being dragged along to this one perhaps it's best to just be thankful and try to enjoy individual aspects of it, as I did.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hunger-Games-Blu-ray-Region-Free/dp/B0063FQRTO/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1336927635&sr=1-1