If you saw the last #mtos post here then you should know what it's all about. Basically, a load of questions are set that will provide us with the opportunity to discuss a movie topic on Sunday (hence Movie Talk On Sunday) with the hashtag #mtos helping you to find everyone involved.
October is the month of horror, of course, and last week saw a great discussion on British horror from #mtos host Film File. This week we're moving away from the UK. It's time to discuss some fine Asian horror. I hope you join us in . . . . seven dayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyys. Sorry, five days. I meant to request that you join us in five days.
1) Kwaidan and Onibaba were both released in 1964. Have you seen them, as influential as they are, and do you have a favourite of the two? #mtos
2) Hausu is a VERY different kind of horror film IMO, and it's madder than a bag of badgers, but it's a kind of mad I love. Please tell me I'm not alone. And how you came to love it. #mtos
3) It's fair to say that the love (or resurgence of love) for Asian horror was kicked off by Ringu, and The Grudge series. What was your entry point, and what impressed you the most about it? #mtos
4) A number of tropes have been established in Asian horror movies. Is there one that makes you roll your eyes (Sadako style) every time it crops up, or are they part of the fun? #mtos
5) Sadako Vs Kayako (2016), was this the ultimate battle of evil that fans never knew they wanted? Was it too silly? And who did you want to win? #mtos
6) Takashi Miike, Takashi Shimizu, Park Chan-wook, Bong Joon-ho, Kim Jee-woon. So many great directors. Who has a filmography that you are most familiar with, and what do they bring to the genre that makes them worth seeking out? #mtos
7) I Saw The Devil, Cold Fish, The Chaser, there are also many horrors from this area with non-supernatural villains. Do you prefer these to the familiar ghosts, and do you have an outright favourite? #mtos
8) Culturally, why do you think Asia, and specifically Japan, manage to craft such creepy films within environments that are often modern, sleek, and heavily populated? #mtos
9) As well as spooky, Asian horror can provide some extreme fare. Have you seen any of those (e.g. the infamous Guinea Pig movies, Grotesque, The Butcher) or do you wonder how anyone can enjoy such nastiness? #mtos
10) Let's end with a recommendation. Tell people the one Asian horror movie that you feel is underseen or just essential viewing for genre fans. #mtos
And that is that. Don't let any of this conversation make you nervous as you get ready for bed this evening. Just relax, make sure the TV is unplugged, don't answer any anonymous numbers on your mobile phone, ignore the creaking stairs, and stay away from anyone with their personal collection of acupuncture needles and piano wire . . . "kiri kiri kiri, kiri . . . kiri . . . kiri."
Tuesday, 9 October 2018
Ben (1972)
Following on immediately from the end of Willard, this is a mediocre film that suffers greatly in comparison to the greatness that preceded it. Although you still get some dangerous rats, there's very little else here that we got in the first film, from the characters to the quality of acting to the overall tone of the whole thing.
Where Willard gave you a young man that you could root for, Ben gives you a boy who is very hard to like. His name is Danny Garrison, and he's played by Lee Montgomery. Danny is a bit lonely, so that makes him the next obvious choice to be friends with Ben and his large pack of ratty friends. While the police try to track down all of the rodents and kill them off, Danny amuses himself by making up songs about his new friend ("Ben" sounds pretty good when Michael Jackson is singing it, not so much when Montgomery is doing the vocals), playing with marionettes, and not dutifully handing over all rat information to the relevant authority figures.
Directed by Phil Karlson, Ben doesn't really know how it wants to play out. The script, by a returning Gilbert A. Ralston, doesn't help, moving from the finale of the first movie to an uninteresting tale of a boy finding a rat and holding on to him like some kind of fluffy action figure. There are moments of rat mayhem here and there, but they don't feel like anything other than filler in a film where they should be some of the main set-pieces. Hampered by the central idea, Karlson makes everything worse by keeping the whole movie tension-free and strangely chipper.
The cast also don't do anything to help. Well, the human cast anyway. Montgomery isn't very good. In fact, he's pretty awful for most of the movie. Rosemary Murphy and Meredith Baxter are better, playing Beth and Eve Garrison, respectively, and Joseph Campanella, Arthur O'Connell, and Kaz Garas are able to stand around, ponder the rat problem, and look determined about sorting things out.
It may be unfair to compare this so much to the first film, and I get that every film should be judged on its own merits, but the fact that it uses the opening scenes to show the end of the first movie and to then continue the storyline "seamlessly" doesn't do it any favours. Viewers are immediately reminded of just how great Willard was, to then be almost immediately disheartened by how lacklustre this is.
There are pluses. Not many, but they are there. First of all, some scenes do feature an impressive number of rats scrabbling around and over one another. Second, you get to hear Michael Jackson singing over the end credits. Third . . . actually, no, there is no third. There are two main positives to take away from my viewing of this film, and I'll give it a point for each, plus one whole point for the acceptable work of the actors who aren't named Lee Montgomery.
3/10
This is the best way to buy the film (because you get a better film with it).
Americans can get the movie here.
Where Willard gave you a young man that you could root for, Ben gives you a boy who is very hard to like. His name is Danny Garrison, and he's played by Lee Montgomery. Danny is a bit lonely, so that makes him the next obvious choice to be friends with Ben and his large pack of ratty friends. While the police try to track down all of the rodents and kill them off, Danny amuses himself by making up songs about his new friend ("Ben" sounds pretty good when Michael Jackson is singing it, not so much when Montgomery is doing the vocals), playing with marionettes, and not dutifully handing over all rat information to the relevant authority figures.
Directed by Phil Karlson, Ben doesn't really know how it wants to play out. The script, by a returning Gilbert A. Ralston, doesn't help, moving from the finale of the first movie to an uninteresting tale of a boy finding a rat and holding on to him like some kind of fluffy action figure. There are moments of rat mayhem here and there, but they don't feel like anything other than filler in a film where they should be some of the main set-pieces. Hampered by the central idea, Karlson makes everything worse by keeping the whole movie tension-free and strangely chipper.
The cast also don't do anything to help. Well, the human cast anyway. Montgomery isn't very good. In fact, he's pretty awful for most of the movie. Rosemary Murphy and Meredith Baxter are better, playing Beth and Eve Garrison, respectively, and Joseph Campanella, Arthur O'Connell, and Kaz Garas are able to stand around, ponder the rat problem, and look determined about sorting things out.
It may be unfair to compare this so much to the first film, and I get that every film should be judged on its own merits, but the fact that it uses the opening scenes to show the end of the first movie and to then continue the storyline "seamlessly" doesn't do it any favours. Viewers are immediately reminded of just how great Willard was, to then be almost immediately disheartened by how lacklustre this is.
There are pluses. Not many, but they are there. First of all, some scenes do feature an impressive number of rats scrabbling around and over one another. Second, you get to hear Michael Jackson singing over the end credits. Third . . . actually, no, there is no third. There are two main positives to take away from my viewing of this film, and I'll give it a point for each, plus one whole point for the acceptable work of the actors who aren't named Lee Montgomery.
3/10
This is the best way to buy the film (because you get a better film with it).
Americans can get the movie here.
Monday, 8 October 2018
Willard (1971)
Considering how much I love the 2003 remake of Willard, it is surprising that it took me this long to get to the original film. Especially considering the fact that the cast includes Bruce Davison in the lead role, and support from Ernest Borgnine, Sondra Locke, and Elsa Lanchester.
Davison plays Willard Stiles, a young man who isn't being treated very well by those around him. His frail mother (Lanchester) makes a lot of demands on his time, his boss (Borgnine) seems to revel in the fact that he can keep him overworked in the company that used to belong to his deceased father, and his family home is in need of some repair, which would be easier to deal with if he had any decent amount of money for it. When asked by his mother to deal with a rodent problem, Willard instead starts training them, and he's soon in charge of a multitude of rats.
Director Daniel Mann may not have a lot of other horror movies in his filmography, although it's an eclectic selection, but he's certainly given fans a bit of a minor classic with this one. Based on a novel by Stephen Gilbert, this is equal parts character study and creature feature, with both serving each other well. Mann, working from a script by Gilbert A. Ralston, builds things up perfectly, using three acts to show, in turn, the mistreatment of Willard, his befriending and training of the rats, and his eventual use of them to help make his life better. The first half of the movie may be much lighter in tone than the second half, and horror fans may find themselves growing impatient for signs of actual horror, but it brilliantly sketches out the history and nature of the central character, making it all the more satisfying when we get to see him fighting back.
Davison is absolutely brilliant in what could well be his finest role. Considering his huge body of film work, it's easy to forget just how great he can be in films more deserving of his talent (I am thinking more of films like this one and Short Eyes than, say, Titanic II). Borgnine is an entertainingly loathsome baddie, which viewers will already know from some of his other performances, and he has some slimy acolytes in the shape of Michael Dante and Joan Shawlee. Lanchester does well in her small role, as frail and whiney as she has to be, Jody Gilbert is someone who tries to help Willard, but only to really also help herself, and Locke brightens up the screen as arguably the only person who sees how badly Willard is being mistreated and taken advantage of by those around him.
What could have easily just been a tale of a boy getting rats to attack his enemies is instead turned into something incredibly bittersweet and, yes, surprisingly moving. It may focus on the rats, and the damage and death they can cause, but it's equally about the need for companionship, the emotional support that can be gained just from knowing friends have your back, and how difficult it can be to move forward with your own life again once you have developed such a strong connection with others.
8/10
There's a double-pack available here.
Americans can get the one movie here.
Davison plays Willard Stiles, a young man who isn't being treated very well by those around him. His frail mother (Lanchester) makes a lot of demands on his time, his boss (Borgnine) seems to revel in the fact that he can keep him overworked in the company that used to belong to his deceased father, and his family home is in need of some repair, which would be easier to deal with if he had any decent amount of money for it. When asked by his mother to deal with a rodent problem, Willard instead starts training them, and he's soon in charge of a multitude of rats.
Director Daniel Mann may not have a lot of other horror movies in his filmography, although it's an eclectic selection, but he's certainly given fans a bit of a minor classic with this one. Based on a novel by Stephen Gilbert, this is equal parts character study and creature feature, with both serving each other well. Mann, working from a script by Gilbert A. Ralston, builds things up perfectly, using three acts to show, in turn, the mistreatment of Willard, his befriending and training of the rats, and his eventual use of them to help make his life better. The first half of the movie may be much lighter in tone than the second half, and horror fans may find themselves growing impatient for signs of actual horror, but it brilliantly sketches out the history and nature of the central character, making it all the more satisfying when we get to see him fighting back.
Davison is absolutely brilliant in what could well be his finest role. Considering his huge body of film work, it's easy to forget just how great he can be in films more deserving of his talent (I am thinking more of films like this one and Short Eyes than, say, Titanic II). Borgnine is an entertainingly loathsome baddie, which viewers will already know from some of his other performances, and he has some slimy acolytes in the shape of Michael Dante and Joan Shawlee. Lanchester does well in her small role, as frail and whiney as she has to be, Jody Gilbert is someone who tries to help Willard, but only to really also help herself, and Locke brightens up the screen as arguably the only person who sees how badly Willard is being mistreated and taken advantage of by those around him.
What could have easily just been a tale of a boy getting rats to attack his enemies is instead turned into something incredibly bittersweet and, yes, surprisingly moving. It may focus on the rats, and the damage and death they can cause, but it's equally about the need for companionship, the emotional support that can be gained just from knowing friends have your back, and how difficult it can be to move forward with your own life again once you have developed such a strong connection with others.
8/10
There's a double-pack available here.
Americans can get the one movie here.
Mubi Monday: I Love You Phillip Morris (2009)
Also . . . there's a horror movie review coming along later. Not going to miss a day here just because MUBI hasn't yet put up any genre offerings.
Co-directed by John Requa and Glenn Ficarra, who also wrote the script based on the book by Steve McVicker, I Love You Phillip Morris is a fantastic comedy, an amusing look at the life of a con man, and an astounding true story.
Jim Carrey stars as Steven Russell. Steven seems to have his life in order. He's a police officer, he plays the organ at church, he has a loving wife and two daughters. He's also very much gay, something that he keeps a secret until a bad car crash leads him to realise that he cannot go on living a lie. Well, he cannot go on living THAT lie. All other lies are fine as long as they allow him to spend lots of money he otherwise wouldn't have to treat himself, and loved ones, to a lavish lifestyle. This leads him to prison, which leads to him meeting Phillip Morris (Ewan McGregor). And so begins a series of audacious cons as Steven aims to spend as much time as possible with his new love, whether in prison or enjoying their freedom.
I don't want to spoil things for anyone who hasn't seen this movie, suffice to say that the biggest con that Russell pulls is as incredible as it is reliant on some very human oversights/errors and it's the focus of the third act, quite rightly so. The script takes great pleasure in sprinkling events with a few little rug-pulls here and there, making it easier to accept some of the more unbelievable true details of the story.
Requa and Ficarra do a good job with the direction too, keeping things light and upbeat (helped by a wonderful score from Nick Urata that often tiptoes very close to emulating "Aquarela do Brasil" by Ary Barroso). There may be no such thing as a victimless crime but this is a lot easier to enjoy thanks to the targets picked by Russell, usually either financial corporations or those in positions of power in the US penal system.
Carrey is on top form in the central role, flying through most of the scenarios with a mixture of optimism, charm, and bullshit. McGregor is also very good, acting very sweet and making it easy to see why the relationship between the two could blossom so quickly. Leslie Mann does well in her small role (she's the loving wife who somehow doesn't outright resent and hate her husband when she is told the truth about him), Rodrigo Santoro is fun as Carrey's first main male partner, and Antoni Corone and Brennan Brown are two businessmen who enjoy Carrey making money for them without noticing that he's taking a decent amount for his own account.
As much about the things people will do for love as it is about someone who seems unable to stop living a life that requires theft, lies, and fraud, I Love You Phillip Morris is an entertainingly light treatment of material that could have easily been dark and painful. You may think it's the wrong approach, but I happen to think it works perfectly.
8/10
You can buy the shiny disc here.
Americans can buy it here.
Or you can click on those links and buy whatever the hell you like.
Co-directed by John Requa and Glenn Ficarra, who also wrote the script based on the book by Steve McVicker, I Love You Phillip Morris is a fantastic comedy, an amusing look at the life of a con man, and an astounding true story.
Jim Carrey stars as Steven Russell. Steven seems to have his life in order. He's a police officer, he plays the organ at church, he has a loving wife and two daughters. He's also very much gay, something that he keeps a secret until a bad car crash leads him to realise that he cannot go on living a lie. Well, he cannot go on living THAT lie. All other lies are fine as long as they allow him to spend lots of money he otherwise wouldn't have to treat himself, and loved ones, to a lavish lifestyle. This leads him to prison, which leads to him meeting Phillip Morris (Ewan McGregor). And so begins a series of audacious cons as Steven aims to spend as much time as possible with his new love, whether in prison or enjoying their freedom.
I don't want to spoil things for anyone who hasn't seen this movie, suffice to say that the biggest con that Russell pulls is as incredible as it is reliant on some very human oversights/errors and it's the focus of the third act, quite rightly so. The script takes great pleasure in sprinkling events with a few little rug-pulls here and there, making it easier to accept some of the more unbelievable true details of the story.
Requa and Ficarra do a good job with the direction too, keeping things light and upbeat (helped by a wonderful score from Nick Urata that often tiptoes very close to emulating "Aquarela do Brasil" by Ary Barroso). There may be no such thing as a victimless crime but this is a lot easier to enjoy thanks to the targets picked by Russell, usually either financial corporations or those in positions of power in the US penal system.
Carrey is on top form in the central role, flying through most of the scenarios with a mixture of optimism, charm, and bullshit. McGregor is also very good, acting very sweet and making it easy to see why the relationship between the two could blossom so quickly. Leslie Mann does well in her small role (she's the loving wife who somehow doesn't outright resent and hate her husband when she is told the truth about him), Rodrigo Santoro is fun as Carrey's first main male partner, and Antoni Corone and Brennan Brown are two businessmen who enjoy Carrey making money for them without noticing that he's taking a decent amount for his own account.
As much about the things people will do for love as it is about someone who seems unable to stop living a life that requires theft, lies, and fraud, I Love You Phillip Morris is an entertainingly light treatment of material that could have easily been dark and painful. You may think it's the wrong approach, but I happen to think it works perfectly.
8/10
You can buy the shiny disc here.
Americans can buy it here.
Or you can click on those links and buy whatever the hell you like.
Sunday, 7 October 2018
Netflix And Chill: Ghost House (2017)
Scout Taylor-Compton and James Landry Hebert star as Julie and Jim, a young couple on holiday in Thailand who end up having quite a bad time of things. All goes well initially, until they are befriended by Robert (Russell Geoffrey Banks) and Billy (Richard Gray). One big night out leads to a trip to a "ghost house" graveyard, which in turn leads to Julie becoming seriously unwell. Medical professionals can't help her. She's either imagining that she's being tormented by an evil spirit or she's actually being tormented by an evil spirit.
Let me begin by telling you what a ghost house is, in case it isn't obvious. They are small houses that are supposed to provide somewhere for spirits to reside (and, in fact, a quick Google search shows that they seem to be more commonly known as Spirit Houses). Offerings are often placed there and it is considered bad form to neglect them. Basically, to my ignorant eyes, it's a birdhouse for the dead.
Written by Kevin O'Sullivan and Jason Chase Tyrrell, from a story by Kevin and Rich Ragsdale, Ghost House is a decent mix of the kind of thing we've seen successfully marketed by Blumhouse in recent years and a healthy dose of Thai flavouring. Most of the scares are jump scares, including an extended sequence in which someone is plunged into darkness and keeps having problems with their flashlight just as something moves around them, but there's no denying that they're well done jump scares, helped by some impressive design work on the main evil spirit.
Rich Ragsdale is also the director, doing a decent job, especially when it would seem to be a relatively low-budget work (not at the bottom end of the scale, by any means, but also doesn't seem to have had any well-known companies offering to help out on the cash front). Whatever the budget was, and I can't seem to find that information just now, Ragsdale has done his best with it.
Hebert is a bit weak in his role, but that's not so bad during many of his scenes with Taylor-Compton, mainly because she does a really good job of showing the toll on her mind and body as she is being continually affected by an evil force. Her performance is so good that I will actually start looking out for her future movie appearances, and she has a few due out in the next year or so, where I was previously unimpressed by the little I had seen of her work (I blame Halloween II - 2009 - for that). Banks and Gray both do decent work as the friendly strangers who may have ulterior motives, Mark Boone Junior is enjoyable in a small, but important role, Michael S. New is very likable as a local guide named Gogo, and both Wattana Koomkrong and Wen-chu Yang do good work as, respectively, the potential saviour or destroyer of our leading lady's soul.
There's easily enough here to appeal to people who enjoy their horror films with some ghost or demonic activity in the mix. Some may resent the amount of jump scares, and all horror fans will recognise that as a common problem in many modern horrors, but I think it provides a decent helping of atmosphere to go along with those jumps.
6/10
The movie might be available here on shiny disc.
Americans can pick it up here.
Let me begin by telling you what a ghost house is, in case it isn't obvious. They are small houses that are supposed to provide somewhere for spirits to reside (and, in fact, a quick Google search shows that they seem to be more commonly known as Spirit Houses). Offerings are often placed there and it is considered bad form to neglect them. Basically, to my ignorant eyes, it's a birdhouse for the dead.
Written by Kevin O'Sullivan and Jason Chase Tyrrell, from a story by Kevin and Rich Ragsdale, Ghost House is a decent mix of the kind of thing we've seen successfully marketed by Blumhouse in recent years and a healthy dose of Thai flavouring. Most of the scares are jump scares, including an extended sequence in which someone is plunged into darkness and keeps having problems with their flashlight just as something moves around them, but there's no denying that they're well done jump scares, helped by some impressive design work on the main evil spirit.
Rich Ragsdale is also the director, doing a decent job, especially when it would seem to be a relatively low-budget work (not at the bottom end of the scale, by any means, but also doesn't seem to have had any well-known companies offering to help out on the cash front). Whatever the budget was, and I can't seem to find that information just now, Ragsdale has done his best with it.
Hebert is a bit weak in his role, but that's not so bad during many of his scenes with Taylor-Compton, mainly because she does a really good job of showing the toll on her mind and body as she is being continually affected by an evil force. Her performance is so good that I will actually start looking out for her future movie appearances, and she has a few due out in the next year or so, where I was previously unimpressed by the little I had seen of her work (I blame Halloween II - 2009 - for that). Banks and Gray both do decent work as the friendly strangers who may have ulterior motives, Mark Boone Junior is enjoyable in a small, but important role, Michael S. New is very likable as a local guide named Gogo, and both Wattana Koomkrong and Wen-chu Yang do good work as, respectively, the potential saviour or destroyer of our leading lady's soul.
There's easily enough here to appeal to people who enjoy their horror films with some ghost or demonic activity in the mix. Some may resent the amount of jump scares, and all horror fans will recognise that as a common problem in many modern horrors, but I think it provides a decent helping of atmosphere to go along with those jumps.
6/10
The movie might be available here on shiny disc.
Americans can pick it up here.
Saturday, 6 October 2018
Shudder Saturday: Arachnid (2001)
Note: I watched Arcahnid on Wednesday evening. I went to check a couple of scenes from it on the Thursday. It had been removed from Shudder, dammit. But I watched it. It WAS on Shudder. I own it, so could revisit those scenes I wanted to see. And this review stands (apologies, however, that Arachnid isn't on Shudder at this time, but perhaps it will come back).
I hate spiders. Hate them. Or, to put it more accurately, I am terrifed of them. Yep, a big arachnophobe, that's me. I know all of the arguments against my irrational fear, especially considering the relatively small varieties that we have here in the UK, but I can't help it. That's why it's an irrational fear. As much as I am afraid of spiders, I am also drawn to horror films that feature the eight-legged horrors. And I thought that Arachnid was going to be a decent, low-budget, killer spider movie. I was wrong.
Things start with a pilot who goes down with his plane. He wanders around an island, sees a weird alien creature, and then he's killed. Time passes. A group head out to the same island, including a woman (Loren Mercer, played by Alex Reid) who is the sister of the missing pilot. They wander about the foliage for a while. Someone gets internal problems from nasty ticks, there are various arguments between members of the group, and then the third act is time for the main creature to be showcased, a giant spider out to kill them all.
The fact that Brian Yuzna was attached as a producer got my hopes up. He's given me a number of very enjoyable horror movies over the years. Unfortunately, his name attached to this as producer doesn't mean that the end product is anything like his directorial outings. Arachnid is bad. The script by Mark Sevi is poor, full of slapdash plotting and horribly cliched dialoge, and the direction from Jack Sholder doesn't help any. The whole thing feels cheap and rushed, although it's saved from being a complete waste of your time by a couple of decent gore gags and the main creature.
Reid isn't a good enough female lead to hold viewer interest, and neither is Chris Potter (her male co-star). But it's easy to see why they bagged the lead roles, certainly in comparison to the selection of fairly dire people supporting them. Rocqueford Allen is okay, the rest are almost unbearable for the entire duration of their time onscreen.
It's not hard to make a spider-centric horror movie that I will enjoy. Whether they're of normal size of turned into giant monstrosities. Hell, I have fond memories of The Giant Spider Invasion. So I struggled with my low rating of this one. But there's just not enough here to make it even passable. Which is a shame. If they had taken away the sci-fi moments, focused more on the simple fun of people being chased by a giant spider, and thrown around some more bloodshed and nastiness, this could have been an amusing way to waste 90 minutes.
3/10
There's a cheap DVD available here.
Americans can buy it here.
Or just click on those links and go shopping for better movies.
I hate spiders. Hate them. Or, to put it more accurately, I am terrifed of them. Yep, a big arachnophobe, that's me. I know all of the arguments against my irrational fear, especially considering the relatively small varieties that we have here in the UK, but I can't help it. That's why it's an irrational fear. As much as I am afraid of spiders, I am also drawn to horror films that feature the eight-legged horrors. And I thought that Arachnid was going to be a decent, low-budget, killer spider movie. I was wrong.
Things start with a pilot who goes down with his plane. He wanders around an island, sees a weird alien creature, and then he's killed. Time passes. A group head out to the same island, including a woman (Loren Mercer, played by Alex Reid) who is the sister of the missing pilot. They wander about the foliage for a while. Someone gets internal problems from nasty ticks, there are various arguments between members of the group, and then the third act is time for the main creature to be showcased, a giant spider out to kill them all.
The fact that Brian Yuzna was attached as a producer got my hopes up. He's given me a number of very enjoyable horror movies over the years. Unfortunately, his name attached to this as producer doesn't mean that the end product is anything like his directorial outings. Arachnid is bad. The script by Mark Sevi is poor, full of slapdash plotting and horribly cliched dialoge, and the direction from Jack Sholder doesn't help any. The whole thing feels cheap and rushed, although it's saved from being a complete waste of your time by a couple of decent gore gags and the main creature.
Reid isn't a good enough female lead to hold viewer interest, and neither is Chris Potter (her male co-star). But it's easy to see why they bagged the lead roles, certainly in comparison to the selection of fairly dire people supporting them. Rocqueford Allen is okay, the rest are almost unbearable for the entire duration of their time onscreen.
It's not hard to make a spider-centric horror movie that I will enjoy. Whether they're of normal size of turned into giant monstrosities. Hell, I have fond memories of The Giant Spider Invasion. So I struggled with my low rating of this one. But there's just not enough here to make it even passable. Which is a shame. If they had taken away the sci-fi moments, focused more on the simple fun of people being chased by a giant spider, and thrown around some more bloodshed and nastiness, this could have been an amusing way to waste 90 minutes.
3/10
There's a cheap DVD available here.
Americans can buy it here.
Or just click on those links and go shopping for better movies.
Friday, 5 October 2018
Filmstruck Friday: Freaks (1932)
I don't have as much reading time nowadays as I used to. That's by choice. I watch a hell of a lot more movies, and I tend to also review a lot of them. So between that and work and, you know, other stuff that takes up my time I just tend to leave reading until I find myself with a free 15 minutes. But I used to be a voracious reader, from a very young age. And it helped that, as a child, my mother had books piled up all around our home. One of those books was about the lives of famous "freaks". I didn't actually read that book, but I did look at the section of photographs. I saw General Tom Thumb (named because of his diminutive stature), a man with no lower half of his body, and Prince Randian. This last figure was the one that stuck with me the most. He had no arms or legs (I believe the book referred to him as "The Human Caterpillar") but was shown in photographs making his own cigarettes. Having been fascinated by these people, I am very surprised that I didn't get around to this classic Tod Browning movie until I was in my late twenties. I think I may have still been silly enough to think that a film from the 1930s couldn't possibly retain the power it had all those years ago. I was wrong.
Prince Randian is not a main character in Freaks, but he does make a brief appearance. As does someone credited as Half Boy (played by Johnny Eck). And probably a number of other people who were featured in that book. This film is all about people who make their living as circus sideshow attractions, as the title none-too-subtly tells you. It gives you a glimpse into the lives of many extraordinary characters, focusing on the main storyline of a midget named Hans (Harry Earles) and his love for a trapeze artist named Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova). Cleopatra doesn't love Hans, yet she figures that she can pretend to for a while until she gets her hands on his large inheritance. And she can make that happen sooner by poisoning him. Because, despite her outward physical appearance, Cleopatra is the ugliest character in this film. Greedy, callous, manipulative, and murderous. She's also pretty blatant about her motivation and intentions, which allows viewers to sit back and wait for her eventual comeuppance.
Written by Willis Goldbeck and Leon Gordon, Freaks remains a wild and incredible film, even by the standards of today. The characters being shown onscreen are fascinating (as well as those mentioned you get to see the Siamese twins named Daisy and Violet Hilton, the human skeleton named Peter Robinson, and Elvira and Jenny Lee Snow playing "Pinheads"), the main storyline is complemented by some enjoyable subplots, and you have the famous utterance of "one of us, one of us". Cleopatra may be written as a bit of a pantomime villain, at times, but that's the way it has to be to take everything where it needs to go for that intense finale.
Director Tod Browning must have known that he was going to shock audiences at the time, and kudos to him for staying true to his vision, even if it did ultimately bring his directorial career to a premature end (he is only credited on a couple of films after this one, which is a great shame indeed). Bringing together such an authentic cast may have led to quite a range of quality in the acting, although it has to be said that most of the main players are very good in their roles, but it also makes it a lot harder to accept the movie as JUST a movie. This remains an experience that is at times bewildering, at times infuriating, and at times absolute nightmare fuel.
I am sure that others have discussed this more thoroughly, it's another one of those occasions when I suspect that adding my own review of an established classic on to an overflowing pile is probably redundant, but I will just take this opportunity to encourage every horror movie fan to seek this out. Considering how influential it is, and how impactful it remains, you would be doing yourself a great disservice if you dismissed it as being too old or too tame for your more modern sensibilities.
10/10
This shiny disc is available to buy.
Or, in American territories, here.
Prince Randian is not a main character in Freaks, but he does make a brief appearance. As does someone credited as Half Boy (played by Johnny Eck). And probably a number of other people who were featured in that book. This film is all about people who make their living as circus sideshow attractions, as the title none-too-subtly tells you. It gives you a glimpse into the lives of many extraordinary characters, focusing on the main storyline of a midget named Hans (Harry Earles) and his love for a trapeze artist named Cleopatra (Olga Baclanova). Cleopatra doesn't love Hans, yet she figures that she can pretend to for a while until she gets her hands on his large inheritance. And she can make that happen sooner by poisoning him. Because, despite her outward physical appearance, Cleopatra is the ugliest character in this film. Greedy, callous, manipulative, and murderous. She's also pretty blatant about her motivation and intentions, which allows viewers to sit back and wait for her eventual comeuppance.
Written by Willis Goldbeck and Leon Gordon, Freaks remains a wild and incredible film, even by the standards of today. The characters being shown onscreen are fascinating (as well as those mentioned you get to see the Siamese twins named Daisy and Violet Hilton, the human skeleton named Peter Robinson, and Elvira and Jenny Lee Snow playing "Pinheads"), the main storyline is complemented by some enjoyable subplots, and you have the famous utterance of "one of us, one of us". Cleopatra may be written as a bit of a pantomime villain, at times, but that's the way it has to be to take everything where it needs to go for that intense finale.
Director Tod Browning must have known that he was going to shock audiences at the time, and kudos to him for staying true to his vision, even if it did ultimately bring his directorial career to a premature end (he is only credited on a couple of films after this one, which is a great shame indeed). Bringing together such an authentic cast may have led to quite a range of quality in the acting, although it has to be said that most of the main players are very good in their roles, but it also makes it a lot harder to accept the movie as JUST a movie. This remains an experience that is at times bewildering, at times infuriating, and at times absolute nightmare fuel.
I am sure that others have discussed this more thoroughly, it's another one of those occasions when I suspect that adding my own review of an established classic on to an overflowing pile is probably redundant, but I will just take this opportunity to encourage every horror movie fan to seek this out. Considering how influential it is, and how impactful it remains, you would be doing yourself a great disservice if you dismissed it as being too old or too tame for your more modern sensibilities.
10/10
This shiny disc is available to buy.
Or, in American territories, here.
Thursday, 4 October 2018
Raw (2016)
Written and directed by Julia Ducournau, Raw is to the cannibal movie what Ginger Snaps is to the werewolf film, to start this review off with some obvious Shorthand 101. Both are coming of age tales, both provide moments that you expect with a number of twists that you don't, and both are anchored by excellent female lead performances.
Garance Marillier is Justine, a young woman starting her university education to become a vet. She is enrolled in the same institution as her older sister, Alexia (played by Ella Rumpf), and ends up sharing a room with a gay man named Adrien (Rabah Nait Oufella). She also ends up finally eating meat as part of her diet, now that she is away from her parents and their vegetarian lifestyle. This leads to her getting a taste for more than just the selection available from any butcher shop.
What starts off as a simple tale of a young woman overwhelmed by a new stage of her life at university, and all of the freedoms and opportunities that come with it, chances to both succeed and fail, soon develops into a tale of, well . . . . actually, a young woman overwhelmed by a new stage of her life at university. She just happens to also develop a taste for VERY fresh meat. Justine changes quite quickly, admittedly, but it's not an immediate transformation, and a lot of the first half of the movie shows the typical "growing pains" of any teenager suddenly away from their parents and deciding to create, or rather recreate, their own identity as they move further into adulthood.
Marillier is fantastic in the central role, believably transforming from a shy and sheltered young woman into someone who loses a lot of her inhibitions and starts to wear her difference from others like a badge with "Fuck You" printed on it. Rumpf is equally good, and the two really convince as sisters who always seem to love one another, even during times when they fall out. Oufella has the easiest of the three main roles, but he does well to portray a supportive and friendly figure who doesn't mind anyone else being a bit weird, up to a point.
Ducournau manages to tell this story without making every scene a gross-out one, although she also puts in a number of scenes that definitely aren't for the squeamish (probably best not to watch this while eating a meal). It helps that she has done such a great job with the development of the lead characters, making viewers hope for the best for them, even as things start to look worse and worse. The technical side of things cannot be faulted, especially admirable as this is the first solo feature from Ducournau (having previously given us one short film and a TV movie co-directed with Virgile Bramly, which also happens to be about an eating disorder), and there's also a fine score by Jim Williams accompanying the visuals, as well as a few lively tunes on the soundtrack.
Some viewers may wish they could have more moments of gore, and there's a "punchline" that could divide opinion (I thought it was great), but this is an interesting cannibal film that comes very close to being as good as the excellent, but a lot more darkly comedic, Ravenous.
8/10
Raw can be bought here.
Americans can buy it here.
Alternatively, you can always click on either of those links and then shop for whatever you want. Which also helps me while letting you treat yourself.
Garance Marillier is Justine, a young woman starting her university education to become a vet. She is enrolled in the same institution as her older sister, Alexia (played by Ella Rumpf), and ends up sharing a room with a gay man named Adrien (Rabah Nait Oufella). She also ends up finally eating meat as part of her diet, now that she is away from her parents and their vegetarian lifestyle. This leads to her getting a taste for more than just the selection available from any butcher shop.
What starts off as a simple tale of a young woman overwhelmed by a new stage of her life at university, and all of the freedoms and opportunities that come with it, chances to both succeed and fail, soon develops into a tale of, well . . . . actually, a young woman overwhelmed by a new stage of her life at university. She just happens to also develop a taste for VERY fresh meat. Justine changes quite quickly, admittedly, but it's not an immediate transformation, and a lot of the first half of the movie shows the typical "growing pains" of any teenager suddenly away from their parents and deciding to create, or rather recreate, their own identity as they move further into adulthood.
Marillier is fantastic in the central role, believably transforming from a shy and sheltered young woman into someone who loses a lot of her inhibitions and starts to wear her difference from others like a badge with "Fuck You" printed on it. Rumpf is equally good, and the two really convince as sisters who always seem to love one another, even during times when they fall out. Oufella has the easiest of the three main roles, but he does well to portray a supportive and friendly figure who doesn't mind anyone else being a bit weird, up to a point.
Ducournau manages to tell this story without making every scene a gross-out one, although she also puts in a number of scenes that definitely aren't for the squeamish (probably best not to watch this while eating a meal). It helps that she has done such a great job with the development of the lead characters, making viewers hope for the best for them, even as things start to look worse and worse. The technical side of things cannot be faulted, especially admirable as this is the first solo feature from Ducournau (having previously given us one short film and a TV movie co-directed with Virgile Bramly, which also happens to be about an eating disorder), and there's also a fine score by Jim Williams accompanying the visuals, as well as a few lively tunes on the soundtrack.
Some viewers may wish they could have more moments of gore, and there's a "punchline" that could divide opinion (I thought it was great), but this is an interesting cannibal film that comes very close to being as good as the excellent, but a lot more darkly comedic, Ravenous.
8/10
Raw can be bought here.
Americans can buy it here.
Alternatively, you can always click on either of those links and then shop for whatever you want. Which also helps me while letting you treat yourself.
Wednesday, 3 October 2018
Prime Time: The Last Shark (1981)
Stop me if you've heard this one. A great white shark starts to cause problems by munching on oblivious people who are trying to enjoy time in the sea. There's a big event coming up (it's a wind-surfing regatta), a local official who doesn't want a pesky shark problem interrupting the festivities, and so it comes down to one determined man (Peter Benton, played by James Franciscus) and one shark hunter (Ron Hamer, played by Vic Morrow) to try and deal with the shark before it snacks on any more funseekers.
But what of the shark itself? Surely that is the star of the show. Not quite. In fact, when it rises out of the water you could be forgiven for thinking that a balloon has somehow floated up from below the tideline. A balloon covered in paper mache, with melted buttons to give it eyes. You get the idea. It's not exactly convincing or scary. Does this mean that Castellari and co. take a leaf out of Spielberg's book and hide the shark away for most of the runtime? No it does not. It could have been worse, but the shark is given far too much screentime, and the situation isn't helped by scenes featuring footage of an actual shark that never matches with the main creature that we're supposed to be watching.
Castellari has some decent titles in his filmography, especially if you're a fan of Westerns or post-apocalyptic films. This is not one of his better efforts. It still has me smiling while I type out this review, however, and it's hard to resist its goofy charm if you know what you're letting yourself in for.
Directed by Enzo G. Castellari, The Last Shark is a terrible film. The script, by Marc Princi, is hilarious, the shark is hilarious, and the way the film so closely parallels Jaws is also hilarious (it's one of a number of films that you can easily describe as Jawsploitation). But being hilarious wouldn't have been bad if it all hadn't also felt so lazy and careless. There isn't even the kind of content you get from other Italian . . . "homages" to blockbuster hits. No excess of gore, no gratuitous nudity, there wasn't even one grizzled warrior with an eyepatch and a flamethrower attached to a severed arm. Any of these elements would have improved the film, and having none of them just feels like a huge missed opportunity.
Remember the famous scene in Jaws that has Roy Scheider scooping chum into the water and being startled by the sudden appearance of the shark into uttering THAT line? The Last Shark knows it cannot compete with that level of brilliance. But it does have someone dangling a large chunk of meat from a helicopter as part of a plan so dumb that even the shark looks bemused for a few seconds (or maybe I was projecting at that point).
Remember the famous scene in Jaws that has Roy Scheider scooping chum into the water and being startled by the sudden appearance of the shark into uttering THAT line? The Last Shark knows it cannot compete with that level of brilliance. But it does have someone dangling a large chunk of meat from a helicopter as part of a plan so dumb that even the shark looks bemused for a few seconds (or maybe I was projecting at that point).
Morrow is very enjoyable in his role (a mix of Hooper and Quint, with a terrible attempt at an Irish, or maybe Scottish, accent), and both Franciscus and Joshua Sinclair (playing that optimistic, ambitious town official) do what's asked of them, with Sinclair gamely taking part in what is most definitely the silliest scene in the entire movie.
But what of the shark itself? Surely that is the star of the show. Not quite. In fact, when it rises out of the water you could be forgiven for thinking that a balloon has somehow floated up from below the tideline. A balloon covered in paper mache, with melted buttons to give it eyes. You get the idea. It's not exactly convincing or scary. Does this mean that Castellari and co. take a leaf out of Spielberg's book and hide the shark away for most of the runtime? No it does not. It could have been worse, but the shark is given far too much screentime, and the situation isn't helped by scenes featuring footage of an actual shark that never matches with the main creature that we're supposed to be watching.
Castellari has some decent titles in his filmography, especially if you're a fan of Westerns or post-apocalyptic films. This is not one of his better efforts. It still has me smiling while I type out this review, however, and it's hard to resist its goofy charm if you know what you're letting yourself in for.
4/10
Do you really want this on DVD? Here it is.
Do NOT pay for this one, but use the link to find other goodies.
Do you really want this on DVD? Here it is.
Do NOT pay for this one, but use the link to find other goodies.
Tuesday, 2 October 2018
Killer Party (1986)
Coming relatively late in the day, certainly when you think of the "golden period" of slasher movies, Killer Party is a film that doesn't get mentioned much, in my experience, and doesn't seem to get any love. That's a shame, because it's a hugely entertaining horror film that takes a sharp turn in the final act to make it stand out from the slasher crowd. Those who have already seen it may be smiling already, those who haven't seen it should give it a go.
The basic story concerns three young women who pledge to a sorority. There are pranks and humiliations, of course, but they manage to get in. The women are then told to turn a house into a suitable location for a Halloween party. They do, and on the night of the party they also have a surprise guest, in the form of a tormented and murderous spirit.
While it may not deliver the highest bodycount in the subgenre, and while you don't really get the required death every 10 minutes, Killer Party makes up for that with a tone that very effectively blends the scares with some comedy. From the double fake start, including a music video sequences that plays out like a rock riff on Thriller, to a prank involving bees and females in a hot tub, this is a film that aims to provide fun, first and foremost. If it didn't get that tone just right then the finale would be ridiculous, quite frankly, but it instead just feels a bit offbeat and goofy.
Sherry Willis-Burch, Joanna Johnson, and Elaine Wilkes are the three main characters, all do decent enough in their roles, and Martin Hewitt and Ralph Seymour do okay as the two main males onscreen. There are plenty of others joining in with the fun but these five tend to be the ones that viewers are asked to keep an eye on as the party unfolds.
Director William Fruet (no stranger to the genre, he also gave us the enjoyable Funeral Home, which was, well, quite a bit worse than this) seems to enjoy playing with the audience expectations here, especially throughout the first half of the film, and writer Barney Cohen gives him good material to work with. It's easy to like our leading ladies and the film moves along nicely until things start to get crazy in the third act.
If you like your slasher movies to have the usual selection of tropes - a prank that backfires to create a motivation for revenge, plenty of kills with weapons that are usefully near to hand, locals warning youngsters of the peril, etc - then this may not be the film for you. But if you like the idea of a film in which a possessed woman, at one point, attacks others with a trident then this is definitely one you should watch.
7/10
There's a DVD available here.
Americans can get it here.
The basic story concerns three young women who pledge to a sorority. There are pranks and humiliations, of course, but they manage to get in. The women are then told to turn a house into a suitable location for a Halloween party. They do, and on the night of the party they also have a surprise guest, in the form of a tormented and murderous spirit.
While it may not deliver the highest bodycount in the subgenre, and while you don't really get the required death every 10 minutes, Killer Party makes up for that with a tone that very effectively blends the scares with some comedy. From the double fake start, including a music video sequences that plays out like a rock riff on Thriller, to a prank involving bees and females in a hot tub, this is a film that aims to provide fun, first and foremost. If it didn't get that tone just right then the finale would be ridiculous, quite frankly, but it instead just feels a bit offbeat and goofy.
Sherry Willis-Burch, Joanna Johnson, and Elaine Wilkes are the three main characters, all do decent enough in their roles, and Martin Hewitt and Ralph Seymour do okay as the two main males onscreen. There are plenty of others joining in with the fun but these five tend to be the ones that viewers are asked to keep an eye on as the party unfolds.
Director William Fruet (no stranger to the genre, he also gave us the enjoyable Funeral Home, which was, well, quite a bit worse than this) seems to enjoy playing with the audience expectations here, especially throughout the first half of the film, and writer Barney Cohen gives him good material to work with. It's easy to like our leading ladies and the film moves along nicely until things start to get crazy in the third act.
If you like your slasher movies to have the usual selection of tropes - a prank that backfires to create a motivation for revenge, plenty of kills with weapons that are usefully near to hand, locals warning youngsters of the peril, etc - then this may not be the film for you. But if you like the idea of a film in which a possessed woman, at one point, attacks others with a trident then this is definitely one you should watch.
7/10
There's a DVD available here.
Americans can get it here.
Monday, 1 October 2018
Mubi Monday: Antiviral (2012)
Directed by Brandon "son of David" Cronenberg, Antiviral is a debut feature that feels very much like something his father would have done back in his early years. There is, however, a lack of the wit and intelligence, and even frame composition, that Cronenberg Senior would have laced throughout, but it's not a bad first full-length film.
Caleb Landry Jones stars as Syd March, a young man who works in a strange, thriving, industry. He sells illnesses to people. Those illnesses are harvested from celebrities and the people wanting to buy them are obsessed fans. To make himself some extra money, Syd smuggles diseases out in his own body, making use of a work device that he has stashed in his home. It's an obviously flawed system, and nobody should be surprised when Syd starts to become more and more unwell.
Cronenberg is working with his own screenplay here, and you can also feel the clear influence from his father in the plotting and main ideas. The illnesses are commodities, but they can also be weaponised, and can lead to those infected with them having strange hallucinatory moments. With Syd a pawn who cannot see the big picture around him, there are many moments here that feel bastardised from Videodrome. It's just that instead of seeking out more extreme content, these people are warped by "celebrity culture" (pun intended).
Jones is very good in the main role, carrying most of the movie even as he grows weaker and looks ready to shuffle off the mortal coil at any moment. There are many other characters who pop up throughout the film but the focus stays on Syd, what he can do for them and how valuable he can be, which allows Jones to stay front and centre at all times, even when he's being given a lot of exposition by Malcolm McDowell. Joe Pingue and James Cade both do well, playing a creator of celebrity foods and a virus "pirate", respectively, and Sarah Gadon portrays one of the most sought-after celebrities on the market.
The look of the film is often, as you would expect, sleek and sterile. If you're going to see blood coughed up then it may as well spatter against a pure white surface, right? But the work environment is juxtaposed against some living conditions that are much less sleek and stylish. They're not exactly squalid but it's easy to see that employees certainly don't get to reap the rewards from the business that the management do.
Although it's a bit of a mess at times, losing focus and building towards an ending that doesn't feel worthy of everything we've gone through, Antiviral shows a lot of promise. Cronenberg can be forgiven, more than most, for being a bit too heavily influenced by his father. And, hey, there are far worse directors out there to be influenced by.
5/10
You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy it here.
Caleb Landry Jones stars as Syd March, a young man who works in a strange, thriving, industry. He sells illnesses to people. Those illnesses are harvested from celebrities and the people wanting to buy them are obsessed fans. To make himself some extra money, Syd smuggles diseases out in his own body, making use of a work device that he has stashed in his home. It's an obviously flawed system, and nobody should be surprised when Syd starts to become more and more unwell.
Cronenberg is working with his own screenplay here, and you can also feel the clear influence from his father in the plotting and main ideas. The illnesses are commodities, but they can also be weaponised, and can lead to those infected with them having strange hallucinatory moments. With Syd a pawn who cannot see the big picture around him, there are many moments here that feel bastardised from Videodrome. It's just that instead of seeking out more extreme content, these people are warped by "celebrity culture" (pun intended).
Jones is very good in the main role, carrying most of the movie even as he grows weaker and looks ready to shuffle off the mortal coil at any moment. There are many other characters who pop up throughout the film but the focus stays on Syd, what he can do for them and how valuable he can be, which allows Jones to stay front and centre at all times, even when he's being given a lot of exposition by Malcolm McDowell. Joe Pingue and James Cade both do well, playing a creator of celebrity foods and a virus "pirate", respectively, and Sarah Gadon portrays one of the most sought-after celebrities on the market.
The look of the film is often, as you would expect, sleek and sterile. If you're going to see blood coughed up then it may as well spatter against a pure white surface, right? But the work environment is juxtaposed against some living conditions that are much less sleek and stylish. They're not exactly squalid but it's easy to see that employees certainly don't get to reap the rewards from the business that the management do.
Although it's a bit of a mess at times, losing focus and building towards an ending that doesn't feel worthy of everything we've gone through, Antiviral shows a lot of promise. Cronenberg can be forgiven, more than most, for being a bit too heavily influenced by his father. And, hey, there are far worse directors out there to be influenced by.
5/10
You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy it here.
Sunday, 30 September 2018
Netflix And Chill: 24 Hours To Live (2017)
Ethan Hawke stars in this action thriller, the kind of slick, violent fare that you would be forgiven for assuming had Luc Besson in a producer role. It's generic stuff, but it's fairly well put together and has a very small role for Rutger Hauer (always welcome).
Hawke is a top assassin named Travis Conrad. He wants to enjoy a holiday but is pestered back into the field by his colleague, and friend, Jim (Paul Anderson). It's an important job, and the pay available for it reflects that. Despite his skills, Travis is shot and killed. But that's just a temporary setback, and the company soon have him back on his feet and ready to finish the job. For 24 hours anyway (hence the title). Travis quickly realises that there's more to this job than just taking out someone who deserves to be dealt with. There's something not right about the whole thing.
Directed by Brian Smrz, 24 Hours To Live is fast-paced and full of decent action moments. Considering the premise of his previous feature, Hero Wanted (his directorial debut), it would seem that Smrz has an affinity for movies in which guys drag themselves out of hospital beds to head off and kill lots of people. Nothing wrong with sticking to what you know, and as I have yet to see Hero Wanted I cannot say if there are many other similarities.
The plotting, although obvious, is perfectly acceptable in the way the premise is set up and played out. Writers Ron Mita and Jim McClain (who have been writing together for a few years now, judging by their filmography), and Zach Dean keep everything at just the right level of enjoyable silliness. This is not a film designed for anyone who wants to overthink things, but it manages to avoid seeming completely unbelievable, even during some of the bigger set-pieces (with a sequence showing Hawke trying to keep his "target" safe from various sharpshooters being a definite highlight).
Hawke is fine in the lead role. He's surprisingly believable as a shooter who can also win out in hand-to-hand combat, especially when the odds are stacked against him. Andersdon does okay in his role, although he's hampered by some of the more predictable script elements, and Liam Cunningham has a lot of fun in his limited amount of screentime. Xu Qing (playing a guard of the main target) should have been given more to do, instead of becoming the main motivator for Hawke's character, but she fares better in the first half of the film, when actually given some of the action, than in the second half.
I doubt this is going to be a film that will be remembered years from now, and it's not one that anyone should rush out to make their top priority, but it's a decent way to spend 90 minutes. And if they found a way to extend the lifespan of Hawke to give him Another 24 Hours To Live then, yes, I would be up for watching that.
6/10
The disc is available here.
Americans can buy it here.
Or you can always click on the links and shop for other things.
Hawke is a top assassin named Travis Conrad. He wants to enjoy a holiday but is pestered back into the field by his colleague, and friend, Jim (Paul Anderson). It's an important job, and the pay available for it reflects that. Despite his skills, Travis is shot and killed. But that's just a temporary setback, and the company soon have him back on his feet and ready to finish the job. For 24 hours anyway (hence the title). Travis quickly realises that there's more to this job than just taking out someone who deserves to be dealt with. There's something not right about the whole thing.
Directed by Brian Smrz, 24 Hours To Live is fast-paced and full of decent action moments. Considering the premise of his previous feature, Hero Wanted (his directorial debut), it would seem that Smrz has an affinity for movies in which guys drag themselves out of hospital beds to head off and kill lots of people. Nothing wrong with sticking to what you know, and as I have yet to see Hero Wanted I cannot say if there are many other similarities.
The plotting, although obvious, is perfectly acceptable in the way the premise is set up and played out. Writers Ron Mita and Jim McClain (who have been writing together for a few years now, judging by their filmography), and Zach Dean keep everything at just the right level of enjoyable silliness. This is not a film designed for anyone who wants to overthink things, but it manages to avoid seeming completely unbelievable, even during some of the bigger set-pieces (with a sequence showing Hawke trying to keep his "target" safe from various sharpshooters being a definite highlight).
Hawke is fine in the lead role. He's surprisingly believable as a shooter who can also win out in hand-to-hand combat, especially when the odds are stacked against him. Andersdon does okay in his role, although he's hampered by some of the more predictable script elements, and Liam Cunningham has a lot of fun in his limited amount of screentime. Xu Qing (playing a guard of the main target) should have been given more to do, instead of becoming the main motivator for Hawke's character, but she fares better in the first half of the film, when actually given some of the action, than in the second half.
I doubt this is going to be a film that will be remembered years from now, and it's not one that anyone should rush out to make their top priority, but it's a decent way to spend 90 minutes. And if they found a way to extend the lifespan of Hawke to give him Another 24 Hours To Live then, yes, I would be up for watching that.
6/10
The disc is available here.
Americans can buy it here.
Or you can always click on the links and shop for other things.
Saturday, 29 September 2018
Shudder Saturday: Hounds Of Love (2016)
Written and directed by Ben Young, making his feature debut, Hounds Of Love isn't the kind of film that seems to give you much to comment on, or discuss. Everything is delivered clearly enough, and in an unflinching, but not gratuitous, manner. Yet the psychology of the main characters, as unpalatable as it may be to explore, is more complex than the plot details might suggest.
Ashleigh Cummings plays a schoolgirl named Vicki Maloney. She's adjusting to the fact that her parents are now separated, which puts her at odds with her mother (Susie Porter). After a big argument, Vicki sneaks out of her room and heads off for a night out. She ends up being picked up by Evelyn (Emma Booth) and John (Stephen Curry), two degenerates who pretend to be friendly while actually plotting to render her unable to defend herself once she is in their home, where she can be kept captive and tortured.
If you want films featuring unsavoury characters that will make you tense while also often making you feel as if you need to give yourself a good scrub down afterwards then Australia should be your first port of all. I could reel off a list of films to illustrate this point (from Chopper to Animal Kingdom, to Cut Snake and, probably the closest to this in terms of grim atmosphere, The Snowtown Murders AKA Snowtown). Hounds Of Love is another fine offering, although it's also one that I can't see many people rushing to rewatch. It's just such a tough experience.
There are two things that this film does very well. First of all, the technical side shows a confidence and canny knack for judging things perfectly that you wouldn't necessarily expect from someone making their feature debut. While the film features violence, sexual abuse, and nudity, it never ever throws all of those things together in any one scene to make it seem exploitative. This is a harrowing story being told, it's not a slice of shockerama to be viewed as a challenge for horror fans (as some others might be, not that I am going to namecheck them here).
Second, the acting is perfect from all involved. There are no overwrought histrionics here, which isn't to say that the characters never get loud and emotional (because they do), and no moustache-twirling moments for the villains. They are evil people, that's clear from the very beginning, but it doesn't have to be shown in an exaggerated way because their despicable behaviour means that even the more mundane moments feel awful because the mundanity is just part of their day in between moments that allow them to get their kicks. Cummings has to do all the thrashing and screaming, which looks like it would have been incredibly draining, but Booth and Curry play their parts with a mix of chillingly quiet menace and explosive anger. Cummings may be the latest prey for them but she's also the latest accelerant on a strange relationship that has been burning too hot for some time now. Porter, Damian de Montemas (as the father of Vicki), and Harrison Gilbertson (Vicki's boyfriend) also do well, and Fletcher Humphrys makes a strong impression in his small role, playing a hard man owed some money by John.
There's a lot more that can be said here: praise for how Young gives backstory to almost all of the main characters without using it to justify any of their actions or manipulate viewers. the framing and shot choice that underlines the violence without gloating over it, the fact that these people are pretty much hiding in plain sight and how they can get away with that in their neighbourhood, and more. It may not be entirely new ground that we're being taken through, but it's got a lot of interesting details tucked away behind the same old doors and walls.
8/10
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
Ashleigh Cummings plays a schoolgirl named Vicki Maloney. She's adjusting to the fact that her parents are now separated, which puts her at odds with her mother (Susie Porter). After a big argument, Vicki sneaks out of her room and heads off for a night out. She ends up being picked up by Evelyn (Emma Booth) and John (Stephen Curry), two degenerates who pretend to be friendly while actually plotting to render her unable to defend herself once she is in their home, where she can be kept captive and tortured.
If you want films featuring unsavoury characters that will make you tense while also often making you feel as if you need to give yourself a good scrub down afterwards then Australia should be your first port of all. I could reel off a list of films to illustrate this point (from Chopper to Animal Kingdom, to Cut Snake and, probably the closest to this in terms of grim atmosphere, The Snowtown Murders AKA Snowtown). Hounds Of Love is another fine offering, although it's also one that I can't see many people rushing to rewatch. It's just such a tough experience.
There are two things that this film does very well. First of all, the technical side shows a confidence and canny knack for judging things perfectly that you wouldn't necessarily expect from someone making their feature debut. While the film features violence, sexual abuse, and nudity, it never ever throws all of those things together in any one scene to make it seem exploitative. This is a harrowing story being told, it's not a slice of shockerama to be viewed as a challenge for horror fans (as some others might be, not that I am going to namecheck them here).
Second, the acting is perfect from all involved. There are no overwrought histrionics here, which isn't to say that the characters never get loud and emotional (because they do), and no moustache-twirling moments for the villains. They are evil people, that's clear from the very beginning, but it doesn't have to be shown in an exaggerated way because their despicable behaviour means that even the more mundane moments feel awful because the mundanity is just part of their day in between moments that allow them to get their kicks. Cummings has to do all the thrashing and screaming, which looks like it would have been incredibly draining, but Booth and Curry play their parts with a mix of chillingly quiet menace and explosive anger. Cummings may be the latest prey for them but she's also the latest accelerant on a strange relationship that has been burning too hot for some time now. Porter, Damian de Montemas (as the father of Vicki), and Harrison Gilbertson (Vicki's boyfriend) also do well, and Fletcher Humphrys makes a strong impression in his small role, playing a hard man owed some money by John.
There's a lot more that can be said here: praise for how Young gives backstory to almost all of the main characters without using it to justify any of their actions or manipulate viewers. the framing and shot choice that underlines the violence without gloating over it, the fact that these people are pretty much hiding in plain sight and how they can get away with that in their neighbourhood, and more. It may not be entirely new ground that we're being taken through, but it's got a lot of interesting details tucked away behind the same old doors and walls.
8/10
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
Friday, 28 September 2018
Filmstruck Friday: Pink Cadillac (1989)
Clint Eastwood can do many things. He can squint perhaps better than anyone else in cinema. He can portray iconic characters who usually solve their problems with violence. He can direct, some of his films being much better than some others. And he can even get away with temporary embarrassments. Some may have forgotten his famous dialogue with an empty chair in an attempt to make some political points a number of years ago. I haven’t. Regardless, it was a blip. He’s allowed a blip. Because Clint Eastwood can do pretty much whatever he likes. Except comedy. No, that is not one of his strengths (unless he’s co-starring with a great ensemble – a la Kelly’s Heroes – or an entertaining orangutang – “right turn, Clyde”).
Pink Cadillac is an action comedy, but it’s sadly lacking in both action and laughs.
Eastwood plays Tommy Nowak, a skip-tracer (seems to be the same as a bounty hunter) who ends up tracking down a woman named Lou Ann McGuinn (Bernadette Peters). Lou Ann was found with counterfeit money that actually belonged to her husband (Timothy Carhart) and his fellow crooks. Heading off in his prized car, the pink cadillac of the title, Lou Ann hopes to evade the law long enough to spend more of the counterfeit money and somehow turn it into real money, thanks to some good luck at casinos, that will set up a better future for her child. Nowak finds Lou Ann quite easily, but he's unsure of the best way to get things done when he hears about her dilemma, involving her child, her husband, and a group of white supremacists who were due all of the money that she drove off with.
The first film written by John Eskow (who has written some others that I have really enjoyed), this script shows an obvious unease, a lack of faith in any of the main elements. That's why the comedy is never funny enough, nor are the action moments as thrilling as they could be. That could have been an issue easier to overlook if the leads were better but Eastwood seems determined to remind viewers that he is working hard at pretending to have fun.
Director Buddy Van Horn directed three movies in total, all starring Clint Eastwood. Starting with the passable enough Any Which Way You Can, he then moved on to the disappointing The Dead Pool (which is also places Jim Carrey in a small role, his very brief cameo in this movie means that he has been in two more Clint Eastwood films than most people would think him suitable for), and finished with this one. They must enjoy working together, however, as Van Horn has spent many years doing stunt work, either performing or co-ordinating the work, for many other Eastwood movies. So it's a distinct possibility that everyone working on this film was having a blast. They just didn't manage to convey that to viewers.
Eastwood is at his worst here, and I consider myself a fan of the man. This was a role that should have been bulked up and developed for someone more naturally comedic (with some hard work, this could have been a great vehicle for someone like Chevy Chase or Eddie Murphy). The material being weak is no excuse for Eastwood being so uncharacteristically lacking in charisma throughout, and that is the biggest problem that the film has. Peters tries harder, and she's as enjoyable as usual, but isn't given enough to do. Carhart is okay as her asshole of a husband, Michael Des Barres is good as the main baddie, and I would have liked to see him be even more of a threat, and you get a fun turn from Geoffrey Lewis, as well as a fleeting bit of screentime for Bill Moseley.
What can I say to sum things up any clearer? You get a weak script, weak direction, and a weak leading turn from someone who is usually on much better form. The saving grace is Peters, but even she doesn't do enough to make this worth your time.
3/10
You can, if you feel the need, buy it here.
Americans can get it here.
Eastwood plays Tommy Nowak, a skip-tracer (seems to be the same as a bounty hunter) who ends up tracking down a woman named Lou Ann McGuinn (Bernadette Peters). Lou Ann was found with counterfeit money that actually belonged to her husband (Timothy Carhart) and his fellow crooks. Heading off in his prized car, the pink cadillac of the title, Lou Ann hopes to evade the law long enough to spend more of the counterfeit money and somehow turn it into real money, thanks to some good luck at casinos, that will set up a better future for her child. Nowak finds Lou Ann quite easily, but he's unsure of the best way to get things done when he hears about her dilemma, involving her child, her husband, and a group of white supremacists who were due all of the money that she drove off with.
The first film written by John Eskow (who has written some others that I have really enjoyed), this script shows an obvious unease, a lack of faith in any of the main elements. That's why the comedy is never funny enough, nor are the action moments as thrilling as they could be. That could have been an issue easier to overlook if the leads were better but Eastwood seems determined to remind viewers that he is working hard at pretending to have fun.
Director Buddy Van Horn directed three movies in total, all starring Clint Eastwood. Starting with the passable enough Any Which Way You Can, he then moved on to the disappointing The Dead Pool (which is also places Jim Carrey in a small role, his very brief cameo in this movie means that he has been in two more Clint Eastwood films than most people would think him suitable for), and finished with this one. They must enjoy working together, however, as Van Horn has spent many years doing stunt work, either performing or co-ordinating the work, for many other Eastwood movies. So it's a distinct possibility that everyone working on this film was having a blast. They just didn't manage to convey that to viewers.
Eastwood is at his worst here, and I consider myself a fan of the man. This was a role that should have been bulked up and developed for someone more naturally comedic (with some hard work, this could have been a great vehicle for someone like Chevy Chase or Eddie Murphy). The material being weak is no excuse for Eastwood being so uncharacteristically lacking in charisma throughout, and that is the biggest problem that the film has. Peters tries harder, and she's as enjoyable as usual, but isn't given enough to do. Carhart is okay as her asshole of a husband, Michael Des Barres is good as the main baddie, and I would have liked to see him be even more of a threat, and you get a fun turn from Geoffrey Lewis, as well as a fleeting bit of screentime for Bill Moseley.
What can I say to sum things up any clearer? You get a weak script, weak direction, and a weak leading turn from someone who is usually on much better form. The saving grace is Peters, but even she doesn't do enough to make this worth your time.
3/10
You can, if you feel the need, buy it here.
Americans can get it here.
Thursday, 27 September 2018
Scream Blacula Scream (1973)
Blacula was a big success when it was released in 1972. So, as expected, a sequel was quickly created. And it is, also as expected, not quite as good as the first film. It's not bad though. Not bad at all.
William Marshall returns to the title role, once again bringing such a great presence and certain dignity to the role. He's resurrected by a young man (Willis, played by Richard Lawson) who wants to become a leader in his voodoo circle. That doesn't go to plan. Willis is instead almost immediately bitten and ordered to stay within the confines of his own home. Meanwhile, Mamuwalde (AKA Blacula) starts to venture out into the night once more, quickly falling for the lovely, and voodoo-wise, Lisa Fortier (Pam Grier). Perhaps the magic that brought him back to life can cure him of his vampirism.
Writers Joan Torres and Raymond Koenig also return, joined this time around by Maurice Jules, and they continue to use the main character in a mixture of traditional vampire moments and also scenes that let him angrily call out situations that he sees around him (specifically when it comes to how people treat one another, as well as how valuable heritage and history are).
It's Bob Kelljan in the director's chair, taking over the role from William Crain, and he does a decent job. Although the film lacks the freshness of the first film, obviously, it makes up for that with the added voodoo elements and a handful of vampire moments that come very close to being genuinely creepy. This may be due to the fact that Kelljan had already given audiences the Count Yorga movies (which, as of this moment, I have yet to watch - sorry, not enough hours in each day). The third act is also almost on a par with that of the first film, walking a familiar path, but with just enough of a twist to avoid it feeling like a carbon copy.
Marshall is just as good here as he was in the first movie and, having recently rewatched that film (before getting to this one), I wouldn't expend too much energy arguing with anyone who wanted to hold him up as one of the best incarnations of Dracula, even if he's a successor to the title rather than the, ummmmmm, original fangster. Grier is good enough in her role, although she's not at her very best (the really good stuff is saved for her leading roles in this era). Lawson suffers from the script making him too weak and whiney, but Don Mitchell manages to even things out with his fine turn, playing the man who puts two and two together and comes up with a batty result.
I was tempted to rate this even higher, placing it much closer to the first film, but I ultimately realised that there's not much in the first hour of the film that comes close to some of the great moments in the finale. There's a lot to enjoy, here and there, but it's only the last 10-15 minutes that show how much more could have been done with the premise. Well worth a watch if you enjoyed Blacula, but it doesn't really avoid many of the standard sequel problems (especially when it comes to the plotting, which is copied almost beat for beat).
6/10
The double-pack can be bought here.
Americans can get the movies here.
William Marshall returns to the title role, once again bringing such a great presence and certain dignity to the role. He's resurrected by a young man (Willis, played by Richard Lawson) who wants to become a leader in his voodoo circle. That doesn't go to plan. Willis is instead almost immediately bitten and ordered to stay within the confines of his own home. Meanwhile, Mamuwalde (AKA Blacula) starts to venture out into the night once more, quickly falling for the lovely, and voodoo-wise, Lisa Fortier (Pam Grier). Perhaps the magic that brought him back to life can cure him of his vampirism.
Writers Joan Torres and Raymond Koenig also return, joined this time around by Maurice Jules, and they continue to use the main character in a mixture of traditional vampire moments and also scenes that let him angrily call out situations that he sees around him (specifically when it comes to how people treat one another, as well as how valuable heritage and history are).
It's Bob Kelljan in the director's chair, taking over the role from William Crain, and he does a decent job. Although the film lacks the freshness of the first film, obviously, it makes up for that with the added voodoo elements and a handful of vampire moments that come very close to being genuinely creepy. This may be due to the fact that Kelljan had already given audiences the Count Yorga movies (which, as of this moment, I have yet to watch - sorry, not enough hours in each day). The third act is also almost on a par with that of the first film, walking a familiar path, but with just enough of a twist to avoid it feeling like a carbon copy.
Marshall is just as good here as he was in the first movie and, having recently rewatched that film (before getting to this one), I wouldn't expend too much energy arguing with anyone who wanted to hold him up as one of the best incarnations of Dracula, even if he's a successor to the title rather than the, ummmmmm, original fangster. Grier is good enough in her role, although she's not at her very best (the really good stuff is saved for her leading roles in this era). Lawson suffers from the script making him too weak and whiney, but Don Mitchell manages to even things out with his fine turn, playing the man who puts two and two together and comes up with a batty result.
I was tempted to rate this even higher, placing it much closer to the first film, but I ultimately realised that there's not much in the first hour of the film that comes close to some of the great moments in the finale. There's a lot to enjoy, here and there, but it's only the last 10-15 minutes that show how much more could have been done with the premise. Well worth a watch if you enjoyed Blacula, but it doesn't really avoid many of the standard sequel problems (especially when it comes to the plotting, which is copied almost beat for beat).
6/10
The double-pack can be bought here.
Americans can get the movies here.
Wednesday, 26 September 2018
Prime Time: Darktown Strutters (1975)
Despite knowing that my own experience of blaxploitation movies is rather limited, certainly in comparison to other connoisseurs, I am going to go out on a limb here and describe Darktown Strutters as one of the most bizarre examples you could choose to watch. I’m not even sure I can describe the plot, which often takes a backseat to some hijinks that seem to have been lifted from some unfilmable episode of The Monkees.
Okay, here is my best attempt. Trina Parks is Syreena, she’s a badass leader of an all-girl motorbike gang. She’s also searching for her missing mother, Cinderella, who subsequently finds out used to provide a service for young women who found themselves in a state of impending motherhood and wanted to, let’s say, avoid the end result. There are some comedy cops bumbling around, some KKK members that like to chase the gang and cause a lot of trouble, and a man named Commander Cross (played by Norman Bartold) has a scheme to replace prominent black males with identical copies that will be programmed to fall in line and insidiously, exponentially, spread a message dictated by white America.
If some of those details are incorrect then please accept my apologies. I can only tell you that I spent most of the movie either grinning gleefully or cringing at the casual awfulness of some of the comedy ("highlights" include some light-hearted attempted rape, a dollop of homophobia, and those bumbling cops, both inept and abusive . . . hilarious).
The script by George Armitage was apparently written in just a few days, which explains a lot. This is the product of some fever dream, although that's not to say that there aren't enjoyable moments. Most of my grinning took place during some of the musical moments, and most scenes featuring Parks are hugely enjoyable, thanks to her being a wonderful badass in the lead role.
Aside from Parks, and Bartold (as the villain of the piece, he gets to make more of an impression than some of the other cast members), nobody else really stands out. There are just too many disparate moments, and no attempts to make the characters anything more than cartoons ready to set up or fall for a gag.
Director William Witney feels like he's herding cats here with the many tangents that see the film hurtling towards more insanity, veering back to the plot (itself not entirely sane), and then enjoying another diversion when it's time for a chase or a song. He keeps everything cheap 'n' cheerful, and at least maintains a consistent tone of whackiness, even if some of the material maybe shouldn't be given the whacky treatment.
The good and the bad end up almost cancelling each other out here, leaving you with a film that falls squarely in the middle. Darktown Strutters will rarely be high on any list of favourite blaxploitation movies but its non-stop deluge of delirium make it worth a watch, especially if you've already worked your way through a lot of the usual suspects.
5/10
There's a pricey DVD available here.
Americans can get this disc.
Okay, here is my best attempt. Trina Parks is Syreena, she’s a badass leader of an all-girl motorbike gang. She’s also searching for her missing mother, Cinderella, who subsequently finds out used to provide a service for young women who found themselves in a state of impending motherhood and wanted to, let’s say, avoid the end result. There are some comedy cops bumbling around, some KKK members that like to chase the gang and cause a lot of trouble, and a man named Commander Cross (played by Norman Bartold) has a scheme to replace prominent black males with identical copies that will be programmed to fall in line and insidiously, exponentially, spread a message dictated by white America.
If some of those details are incorrect then please accept my apologies. I can only tell you that I spent most of the movie either grinning gleefully or cringing at the casual awfulness of some of the comedy ("highlights" include some light-hearted attempted rape, a dollop of homophobia, and those bumbling cops, both inept and abusive . . . hilarious).
The script by George Armitage was apparently written in just a few days, which explains a lot. This is the product of some fever dream, although that's not to say that there aren't enjoyable moments. Most of my grinning took place during some of the musical moments, and most scenes featuring Parks are hugely enjoyable, thanks to her being a wonderful badass in the lead role.
Aside from Parks, and Bartold (as the villain of the piece, he gets to make more of an impression than some of the other cast members), nobody else really stands out. There are just too many disparate moments, and no attempts to make the characters anything more than cartoons ready to set up or fall for a gag.
Director William Witney feels like he's herding cats here with the many tangents that see the film hurtling towards more insanity, veering back to the plot (itself not entirely sane), and then enjoying another diversion when it's time for a chase or a song. He keeps everything cheap 'n' cheerful, and at least maintains a consistent tone of whackiness, even if some of the material maybe shouldn't be given the whacky treatment.
The good and the bad end up almost cancelling each other out here, leaving you with a film that falls squarely in the middle. Darktown Strutters will rarely be high on any list of favourite blaxploitation movies but its non-stop deluge of delirium make it worth a watch, especially if you've already worked your way through a lot of the usual suspects.
5/10
There's a pricey DVD available here.
Americans can get this disc.
Tuesday, 25 September 2018
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Here it is. The Star Wars spin-off/prequel that we were all excited about when Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (the masters of making unlikely hits) were attached. That excitement started to fade when they parted ways from the project, the safe "creative differences" was the excuse given. And then there were expensive reshoots. And then the film was released, going on to achieve some fairly disappointing numbers at the box office.
I didn't rush to see it, and I didn't hear from too many people who did. It felt like something lacking the spectacle and magic of the main movie series (which even includes those much-criticised prequels, I hasten to add). It felt a bit, dare I say it, pointless.
The mess that led to this film underperforming and being viewed as a big mistake in the ongoing development of the Star Wars cinematic universe is a bit of a shame, because the film itself is a fun sci-fi adventure that benefits from some great lead performances and an enjoyable backstory for a beloved cinematic icon. Okay, we never needed that backstory, I agree, but the writers here - Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan - at least make it a fun one.
I'm not going to cover the plot details here. It's enough to say that the film follows young Han (played by Alden Ehrenreich) as he sets out to make a name for himself, gets involved with someone who taches him a valuable lesson or two, befriends a large Wookie, meets Lando Calrissian (owner of the Millennium Falcon), and ends up flying through the Kessel Run.
I can't emphasise enough how much this film is lifted by the casting of Ehrenreich in the main role. Some may disagree, and my wife numbers among them, but I think he has just the perfect mix of what young Han should be, in terms of both looks and attitude. I first enjoyed Ehrenreich's acting, like so many other viewers, when I caught him in Hail, Caesar! and I hope that he just keeps going on to bigger and better things (and I would have liked to see him in another Solo movie, but that seems unlikely now). The other three people who easily hold the screen alongside Ehrenreich are Woody Harrelson (as Beckett, a criminal type who becomes a bit of a mentor), Joonas Suotamo playing Chewbacca, and Donald Glover as Lando. All of them are fantastic, but it's Glover who would steal the movie if it wasn't full of so many great little moments for everyone. Emilia Clarke, playing the woman who inavdvertently set Han on his path through life, is better here than she has been in some other movie roles, Paul Bettany gives a fine performance as a crime boss that you should never cross, and Thandie Newton, Jon Favreau (his voice anyway), and Phoebe Waller-Bridge (also a vocal performance) all do solid work. Waller-Bridge has the most fun, which makes it a shame that her character wasn't onscreen for a bit longer.
Ron Howard is the man who ended up in the director's chair. He does the perfectly competent job that you would expect him to do. It's not up there with his best work, and it's not up there with the best of the Star Wars movies, but it's a genuinely good time for viewers wanting to sit back, relax, and spend a couple of hours in the company of a reluctant hero they can find out a little bit more about. The script drops a number of lovely little details throughout, fleshing out a few of the main characters in scenes that entertain without ever betraying their essence (although it's quite easy when you keep things so simple - e.g. Lando is a charming rogue).
There are some touches that feel a bit forced, especially in the third act, but the pleasant surprise is just how much the film feels like Han at every turn. The music by John Powell aside (it never hits the heights that viewers might expect), this feels effortless and charming. It's one that I can see myself revisiting often, which is all down to how much I enjoyed spending time with these characters.
8/10
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
I didn't rush to see it, and I didn't hear from too many people who did. It felt like something lacking the spectacle and magic of the main movie series (which even includes those much-criticised prequels, I hasten to add). It felt a bit, dare I say it, pointless.
The mess that led to this film underperforming and being viewed as a big mistake in the ongoing development of the Star Wars cinematic universe is a bit of a shame, because the film itself is a fun sci-fi adventure that benefits from some great lead performances and an enjoyable backstory for a beloved cinematic icon. Okay, we never needed that backstory, I agree, but the writers here - Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan - at least make it a fun one.
I'm not going to cover the plot details here. It's enough to say that the film follows young Han (played by Alden Ehrenreich) as he sets out to make a name for himself, gets involved with someone who taches him a valuable lesson or two, befriends a large Wookie, meets Lando Calrissian (owner of the Millennium Falcon), and ends up flying through the Kessel Run.
I can't emphasise enough how much this film is lifted by the casting of Ehrenreich in the main role. Some may disagree, and my wife numbers among them, but I think he has just the perfect mix of what young Han should be, in terms of both looks and attitude. I first enjoyed Ehrenreich's acting, like so many other viewers, when I caught him in Hail, Caesar! and I hope that he just keeps going on to bigger and better things (and I would have liked to see him in another Solo movie, but that seems unlikely now). The other three people who easily hold the screen alongside Ehrenreich are Woody Harrelson (as Beckett, a criminal type who becomes a bit of a mentor), Joonas Suotamo playing Chewbacca, and Donald Glover as Lando. All of them are fantastic, but it's Glover who would steal the movie if it wasn't full of so many great little moments for everyone. Emilia Clarke, playing the woman who inavdvertently set Han on his path through life, is better here than she has been in some other movie roles, Paul Bettany gives a fine performance as a crime boss that you should never cross, and Thandie Newton, Jon Favreau (his voice anyway), and Phoebe Waller-Bridge (also a vocal performance) all do solid work. Waller-Bridge has the most fun, which makes it a shame that her character wasn't onscreen for a bit longer.
Ron Howard is the man who ended up in the director's chair. He does the perfectly competent job that you would expect him to do. It's not up there with his best work, and it's not up there with the best of the Star Wars movies, but it's a genuinely good time for viewers wanting to sit back, relax, and spend a couple of hours in the company of a reluctant hero they can find out a little bit more about. The script drops a number of lovely little details throughout, fleshing out a few of the main characters in scenes that entertain without ever betraying their essence (although it's quite easy when you keep things so simple - e.g. Lando is a charming rogue).
There are some touches that feel a bit forced, especially in the third act, but the pleasant surprise is just how much the film feels like Han at every turn. The music by John Powell aside (it never hits the heights that viewers might expect), this feels effortless and charming. It's one that I can see myself revisiting often, which is all down to how much I enjoyed spending time with these characters.
8/10
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
Monday, 24 September 2018
Mubi Monday: Rope (1948)
Alfred Hitchcock once said something about how an explosion will give audiences a fright but showing a ticking bomb under the chair of some unsuspecting potential victim would have them on edge right up until the explosion. I'm paraphrasing but I remember the essence of his message. He liked to scare people, but he equally enjoyed making them tense.
Rope starts with a murder, committed by Phillip (Farley Granger) and Brandon (John Dall). The body is hidden in a chest and, for the rest of the movie, there it stays while the two murderers host a small dinner party, all the while hoping that nobody suspects that they're sharing a room with a hidden corpse. The one person who may suspect is Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), an old schoolteacher they believe would actually enjoy their whole plan. Of course, they cannot tell him what they have done. The only thing they can do is enjoy watching Cadell mull over how strange the evening is.
As famous for the way it was shot as for the content, Rope is a film unfairly viewed by some (including Hitchcock himself, and I should mention that it was he who directed it) as nothing more than a gimmicky experiment. There's no denying that the lengthy takes, the logistics of how every shot was set out, and the manipulation of the main environment (including a wonderful display showing the city skyline turning from day to night), is technically impressive, but that's only part of the reason to enjoy the film. The script, by Arthur Laurents (from a play by Patrick Hamilton), is a lot of fun, allowing viewers to watch two nasty individuals grow increasingly edgy as their own arrogance starts to bite them on the backside.
Granger is the more agitated of the pair, tense from the very beginning and only getting worse when alcohol is added to the mix. Dall gets to have more fun, unflappable throughout, even as it looks more and more unlikely that their "perfect crime" will be discovered. Stewart, despite the fact that he didn't think himself suited to this role, is his usual good self, a smart and sophisticated man who is equally happy chatting to the other guests as he is joking with the maid (Edith Evanson). Joan Chandler and Douglas Dick are both enjoyable enough as the other, younger, guests, and both Cedrick Hardwicke and Constance Collier are very good as the two older attendees, with Collier a particular delight.
Although it would be easy to confuse Rope with the attitudes of the two main characters - smug, self-absorbed, interested in creating something audacious and impressive just for the same of being able to say it was done - I think it holds up as a fine piece of thrilling cinema. Few other films spend the entire runtime showing you that ticking bomb under the chair. This one does, and to great effect. The ticking bomb just happens to be in the shape of a stashed corpse.
8/10
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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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
Sunday, 23 September 2018
Netflix And Chill: Valerian And The City Of A Thousand Planets (2017)
A variety of things can save movies from being terrible. There could be one great performance, there could be an enjoyable twist in the third act, there could be some screentime for Diora Baird (what? each to their own, don't you judge me). Valerian And The City Of A Thousand Planets manages to avoid being a terrible movie because of the sheer abundance of visual gorgeousness and design creativity on display. There are also a couple of great supporting turns, but it's the visuals that help to make the 120+ minute runtime much more bearable than it otherwise would be.
Dane DeHaan is Major Valerian, an agent who works alongside Sergeant Laureline (played by Cara Delevingne). He's also in love with her, but she is wary of his long list of past loves signifying a fear of commitment. More importantly, the two are tasked with a mission that will take them into the city of a thousand planets, hence the title. There are moments of action, many different lifeforms on display, and a race against the clock. That's all you need to know.
Written and directed by Luc Besson, based on a comic book series by Pierre Christin and Jean-Claude Mezieres, this is a film that could have been great. Besson is on good form here, obviously in love with the material and pulling out all of the stops to realise as many vibrant and fully-textured different environments onscreen as he can. He takes time to let the camera soak up plenty of details, but is equally happy to zoom and spin around while following characters through a number of chase sequences. He doesn't do as well with the script but it's standard pulpy sci-fi stuff, and fans of this kind of fare will have endured much worse.
The problem really comes from the leads, who just aren't anywhere close to being charismatic enough to cover over the weaker parts and sell the shenanigans. I like both DeHaan and Delevingne, the former is especially good in the right roles, but neither of them work here. It's not that they're terrible, they're just not a fit for the roles, nor do they work well off one another. That just becomes more and more obvious whenever we get fun turns from Clive Owen, Ethan Hawke, and even Rihanna (yes, she's very good in her small role). Herbie Hancock is a standard, gruff, authority figure, and he's fine in his role, but it's the others who get to look like they're actually enjoying themselves whenever they're onscreen.
There are other problems. The score by Alexandre Desplat doesn't feel right for the visuals (and I know that I don't mention music in films as often as I should, mainly because when it works it's easy to notice it less, like great CGI). It lacks any sense of grandeur or magic, often bringing it to your attention by being so relentlessly . . . flat while the visuals dazzle. It's also too busy at times, in terms of both characters and plot points. An action sequence in the first act never works as well as it should for this reason, although it is still a lot of fun. Last, but not least, you have the same problem that affected the unfairly-maligned John Carter. We've seen a lot of this stuff before, but that's down to the source material being around since the late 1960s, which is some time before many of the movies and stories it may have subsequently influenced.
If you're looking for some smart sci-fi then look elsewhere, but if you're looking for some easy sci-fi entertainment full to the brim with imagination and a sense of fun then this should hit the spot. It's just a shame that it didn't do enough in the other departments to complement the style and visuals.
6/10
Here's a shiny disc available for you.
Americans can get it here.
Or you can click on either link and shop for anything you like, which works for me.
Dane DeHaan is Major Valerian, an agent who works alongside Sergeant Laureline (played by Cara Delevingne). He's also in love with her, but she is wary of his long list of past loves signifying a fear of commitment. More importantly, the two are tasked with a mission that will take them into the city of a thousand planets, hence the title. There are moments of action, many different lifeforms on display, and a race against the clock. That's all you need to know.
Written and directed by Luc Besson, based on a comic book series by Pierre Christin and Jean-Claude Mezieres, this is a film that could have been great. Besson is on good form here, obviously in love with the material and pulling out all of the stops to realise as many vibrant and fully-textured different environments onscreen as he can. He takes time to let the camera soak up plenty of details, but is equally happy to zoom and spin around while following characters through a number of chase sequences. He doesn't do as well with the script but it's standard pulpy sci-fi stuff, and fans of this kind of fare will have endured much worse.
The problem really comes from the leads, who just aren't anywhere close to being charismatic enough to cover over the weaker parts and sell the shenanigans. I like both DeHaan and Delevingne, the former is especially good in the right roles, but neither of them work here. It's not that they're terrible, they're just not a fit for the roles, nor do they work well off one another. That just becomes more and more obvious whenever we get fun turns from Clive Owen, Ethan Hawke, and even Rihanna (yes, she's very good in her small role). Herbie Hancock is a standard, gruff, authority figure, and he's fine in his role, but it's the others who get to look like they're actually enjoying themselves whenever they're onscreen.
There are other problems. The score by Alexandre Desplat doesn't feel right for the visuals (and I know that I don't mention music in films as often as I should, mainly because when it works it's easy to notice it less, like great CGI). It lacks any sense of grandeur or magic, often bringing it to your attention by being so relentlessly . . . flat while the visuals dazzle. It's also too busy at times, in terms of both characters and plot points. An action sequence in the first act never works as well as it should for this reason, although it is still a lot of fun. Last, but not least, you have the same problem that affected the unfairly-maligned John Carter. We've seen a lot of this stuff before, but that's down to the source material being around since the late 1960s, which is some time before many of the movies and stories it may have subsequently influenced.
If you're looking for some smart sci-fi then look elsewhere, but if you're looking for some easy sci-fi entertainment full to the brim with imagination and a sense of fun then this should hit the spot. It's just a shame that it didn't do enough in the other departments to complement the style and visuals.
6/10
Here's a shiny disc available for you.
Americans can get it here.
Or you can click on either link and shop for anything you like, which works for me.
Saturday, 22 September 2018
Shudder Saturday: Hell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel (2018)
A lot of people REALLY liked Hell House LLC when it appeared a few years ago. It's not hard to see why. It was a found footage movie that smartly built up tension and supplied scares with good structuring of the tale and many unsettling details scattered throughout almost every scene. I liked it. Just liked it. The acting was so-so, it didn't do enough to provide the all-important reason for anyone to keep filming, and it felt a bit slight. But it was still a lot better than dozens of other found footage movies I have endured over the years.
Hell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel is a better film. It compares to the first film as Grave Encounters 2 compares to Grave Encounters. Basically, everything is elevated, making it far less believable but also far more entertaining. There are some truly bonkers moments here. More importantly, there are some scares that had me swearing at my TV screen as I waited for my heartbeat to calm down a bit.
The plot follows on from the events of the first film. People are still curious about just what happened at the opening night of Hell House, LLC, and a TV show featuring the man who made the documentary about it (Mitchell, played by Vasile Flutur) eventually leads to a return trip to the location. The brave souls heading back in there are an investigative journalist (Jessica Fox, played by Jillian Guerts), her colleagues (Molly, played by Joy Shatz, and cameraman David, played by David Austen), a psychic (Kyle Ingleman), his main colleague (didn't get his name, never mind), and the only one who knows what danger they might be getting themselves into - Mitchell. Once inside, it starts to become clear that the site of the Hell House, the Abaddon Hotel, doesn't want them to leave.
Once again written and directed by Stephen Cognetti, this is a sequel that seems to have been made by someone given a chance to have more fun and cut loose with his sophomore feature. As well as the main narrative strand, there are a number of sequences that show how others have fared when they have decided to bravely enter the hotel on their own. All of those sequences have at least one great scare, making it easier to forgive the fact that Cognetti has decided to use the found footage format in a very loose way. There's no cohesive "end product" here, and no real rhyme or reason to the editing of various clips, aside from making things easier for Cognetti to have fun with viewers and save some decent reveals for the final act.
The acting is serviceable from everyone involved. Nobody really excels (although Ingleman stands out as the showbiz psychic) but they all do a good enough job of looking suitably petrified and running away from scary figures that have no right to be moving around in the building.
For me, this is a film all about the scares. Some may enjoy the way the plot unfolds, I could take or leave the way Cognetti expands things from the first film, but it's the effectiveness of the scares that make this a film I can see a lot of horror fans taking a shine to. There are jump scares, yes, but they're not used as often as the more effective, subtle until they become blatant, scares. I'm on about the scares that are there, almost front and centre, but it takes your mind a moment to realise that something is very off with the image you're looking at. Or scares that happen while the main characters are oblivious, some making you reach for the rewind function even as the iciness of you rblood in your veins is already convincing you that you did indeed just see what you think you saw.
I HIGHLY recommend Hell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel. October (which is a whole month of Halloween treats for us horror fans) is just over a week away. This should definitely be on your list of potential viewings.
8/10
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
Hell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel is a better film. It compares to the first film as Grave Encounters 2 compares to Grave Encounters. Basically, everything is elevated, making it far less believable but also far more entertaining. There are some truly bonkers moments here. More importantly, there are some scares that had me swearing at my TV screen as I waited for my heartbeat to calm down a bit.
The plot follows on from the events of the first film. People are still curious about just what happened at the opening night of Hell House, LLC, and a TV show featuring the man who made the documentary about it (Mitchell, played by Vasile Flutur) eventually leads to a return trip to the location. The brave souls heading back in there are an investigative journalist (Jessica Fox, played by Jillian Guerts), her colleagues (Molly, played by Joy Shatz, and cameraman David, played by David Austen), a psychic (Kyle Ingleman), his main colleague (didn't get his name, never mind), and the only one who knows what danger they might be getting themselves into - Mitchell. Once inside, it starts to become clear that the site of the Hell House, the Abaddon Hotel, doesn't want them to leave.
Once again written and directed by Stephen Cognetti, this is a sequel that seems to have been made by someone given a chance to have more fun and cut loose with his sophomore feature. As well as the main narrative strand, there are a number of sequences that show how others have fared when they have decided to bravely enter the hotel on their own. All of those sequences have at least one great scare, making it easier to forgive the fact that Cognetti has decided to use the found footage format in a very loose way. There's no cohesive "end product" here, and no real rhyme or reason to the editing of various clips, aside from making things easier for Cognetti to have fun with viewers and save some decent reveals for the final act.
The acting is serviceable from everyone involved. Nobody really excels (although Ingleman stands out as the showbiz psychic) but they all do a good enough job of looking suitably petrified and running away from scary figures that have no right to be moving around in the building.
For me, this is a film all about the scares. Some may enjoy the way the plot unfolds, I could take or leave the way Cognetti expands things from the first film, but it's the effectiveness of the scares that make this a film I can see a lot of horror fans taking a shine to. There are jump scares, yes, but they're not used as often as the more effective, subtle until they become blatant, scares. I'm on about the scares that are there, almost front and centre, but it takes your mind a moment to realise that something is very off with the image you're looking at. Or scares that happen while the main characters are oblivious, some making you reach for the rewind function even as the iciness of you rblood in your veins is already convincing you that you did indeed just see what you think you saw.
I HIGHLY recommend Hell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel. October (which is a whole month of Halloween treats for us horror fans) is just over a week away. This should definitely be on your list of potential viewings.
8/10
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)