Jacob's Ladder is one of those movies that I missed when it first came out. And I didn't catch it until approximately fifteen years. I appreciate that many other movies came and went in that time that were influenced by this one, but I've still never quite loved it as much as many other horror fans. It's a good film, don't get me wrong, and the cast is a wonderful one. It's just never as horrifying or downright eerie as it could be, especially when you compare most of the movie to a few of the impressively unnerving images that are produced in the first half of the film.
Tim Robbins plays Jacob Singer, a Vietnam veteran who starts to have dark and unsettling visions that affect his health and daily behaviour. It's also making things difficult with his girlfriend (played by Elizabeth Pena). Are the visions the result of some experimentation on his unit during wartime? Are they signs of a mental breakdown? Or are they something more sinister?
Director Adrian Lyne works confidently here, and also makes popular that special effect that we will refer to by the technical term "really fast shakey head and blurry face moves". He doesn't rush things, even when the third act will probably be obvious to many viewers. This is a film more about the journey than the final destination, funnily enough, and that journey is interspersed with some fantastic phantasmagoria.
The script, by Bruce Joel Rubin, is equally confident, taking the time to flesh out a number of the supporting characters while leaving plenty of breathing room for the moments of tension and spookiness. In fact, it could bee argued that the main strength of the film is how it gets you to invest in a number of people who could so easily have been consigned to much smaller roles without any real damage to the central horror strand of the narrative.
That's also helped by the casting. Robbins has always impressed me in the way that he can equally use his full height to his advantage or fold himself up to make himself more vulnerable, depending on the role. This is somewhere in between, with Jacob a man who has clearly left his army days far behind him yet retains the strength to withhold a sustained attack on his mental faculties. Pena is a strong woman opposite him, alternating between sympathy for what Jacob appears to be going through and reminding him that she will only put up with so much shit. Elsewhere, Danny Aiello is a chiropractor who tries his best to guide Jacob through his dark path, Jason Alexander pops up momentarily to portray a lawyer who may or may not end up helping the ex-soldiers find out what was done to them, and Pruitt Taylor Vince, Ving Rhames, Eriq La Salle, and one or two others play the men who fought alongside Jacob in his platoon.
As influential as it is derivative, Jacob's Ladder remains an impressive horror that is relatively interesting and intelligent throughout, and also played completely straight. Which perhaps explains, more than the actual premise, why it went down so well in 1990, when first released.
If you enjoyed this review, and live in the UK, feel free to browse and buy some shit here - https://www.amazon.co.uk/
If you enjoyed this review and live in the USofA then feel free to browse and buy some shit here - http://www.amazon.com/
K-Shop is an acerbic commentary on the binge drinking culture of Brits out for a big weekend. It's also interested in the power of minor celebrity in a world that lets these people away with, and sometimes even seems to encourage, some pretty morally bankrupt behaviour. And it's a bit of a kebab-centric riff on the tale of Sweeney Todd. Which would all be much more enjoyable if it didn't run for about 115 minutes, making it feel approximately 100 minutes too long. Writer/director Dan Pringle had a good idea for his feature debut, and I imagine that he may have envisioned the central premise with a couple of main scenes bookending the whole thing, but he then made the mistake of turning into something rambling and irritating, much like many of the drunkards who end up onscreen.
Ziad Abaza plays Salah, a young man who takes a break from his studies to help out his father with the kebab shop that he's been running, thanklessly, for a number of years. The parade of pissed up ingrates soon begin to take their toll on Malik, and his studies. His father ends up suffering even more after one too many incidents affecting his health. And when one confrontation goes too far it turns out that any meat can be added to the rotating kebab. And it ends up being surprisngly tasty, according to some details scattered throughout that end up showing how well the shop does (although this isn't ever at the forefront of the action).
There are moments to enjoy here. The material lends itself to a darkly comedic vibe, obviously, and I can't deny how satisfying it was when Salah finally put certain individuals in their place (and that place is on a kebab). But Pringle never hits the nail on the head. He seems too distracted by a few different ideas that he then dwells on for too long. Take the moments that sketch out the character of Jason Brown (a local z-list celebrity played by Scot Williams). Although he's very much needed in the movie, ultimately, he feels completely superfluous to events. As does a young lad named Malik (played by Reece Noi). And even a woman named Sarah, played by Kristin Atherton. Again, these characters are needed for a number of reasons. But Pringle doesn't use them half as well as he should. Which is a shame, because he bagged himself a pretty great little cast.
Abaza is very good in the lead role, and you stay on his side at almost every moment (although that's also to do with the quality of the acting from those playing his potential victims), Williams is suitably cocky and shallow, while Noi and Atherton show Abaza other potential reflections of himself, and what his influence could mean.
Some might think my rating here is generous. I'm sure the director and his cast would think it woefully below-par. I think it's pretty much spot on. This is a competent film with one or two good ideas. It just somehow manages to both stretch those ideas too thin and not do enough with them, as paradoxical as that sounds.
If you enjoyed this review, and live in the UK, feel free to browse and buy some shit here - https://www.amazon.co.uk/
If you enjoyed this review and live in the USofA then feel free to browse and buy some shit here - http://www.amazon.com/
AKA that film that features Patrick Stewart as the leader of a bunch of neo-Nazis. AKA "Do you feel lucky, punk?"
Written and directed by Jeremy Saulnier, who previously gave us the excellent Blue Ruin (and before that gave us Murder Party - which I have yet to watch), Green Room could accurately be described as a snarling beast of a film. It feels raw and visceral throughout, and not just because the main protagonists are members of a punk rock band who prefer their vocals to be primal and full of anger.
The band is made up of Alia Shawkat, Anton Yelchin, Joe Cole, and Callum Turner. They're not having a very good time, having to siphon petrol to keep their van on the road and being interviewed by someone who no longer has a show on air . . . . . . . . and can't get them the decent gig that they thought they were travelling to. To make amends, they are offered a gig elsewhere. It's the middle of nowhere. Most of the audience seem to be of a certain political leaning, to put it nicely, but the band figure that they can insult them, play a few songs, and make out with a few hundred dollars for their troubles. Which isn't bad at all. And then someone pops into a room backstage and witnesses some people around a fresh corpse. Which is when things start to go from bad to worse to the stuff of nightmares.
Green Room is a lean, nasty, grimy thriller that feels very much like something from an earlier decade. Thankfully, it manages to feel that way without making too many obvious nods and winks to viewers. The most obvious jumping off point would be the classic Assault On Precinct 13, and one or two other John Carpenter movies, but these characters, and this level of violence and brutality, could have stepped out from any number of xploitation movies from the '70s and '80s.
But I don't want to spoil your expectations with hyperbole here. Don't go into the movie expecting a) wall to wall violence and b) nastiness unlike anything you've ever witnessed before. No. What Saulnier does so well is litter his movie with moments to make you wince and scenes that often take a left turn when you thought they were moving right (no pun intended).
All of the aforementioned cast members do a very good job, even when jumping around and trying to look like punk rockers, and Patrick Stewart certainly makes a great impression with his relatively limited amount of screentime, but there are also fantastic turns from Mark Webber and Macon Blair, to name but two of a handful of people I could have singled out. Imogen Poots is a bit out of place here, but I like her anyway and she's not exactly stinking up the entire film. She just doesn't really seem to fit into this world.
If you're hoping for another Blue Ruin then this isn't for you. But if you're hoping for a film that uses fight dogs, box cutters, guns, fire extinguishers, and plenty of fake blood then get to this as soon as possible. Personally, I think this is the better film. But that just says a lot more about my mental state than the difference in quality between the two.
It's been hard to avoid the hype machine for Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice (forthwith known as BvS for the purposes of this review). Ever since initial announcements were made, to either applause or sneers, or both, there has been an almost steady, grinding inevitability to viewing this superhero battle. A sense that Warner Bros. have placed us all on a conveyor belt that they alone have been operating, with the end drop either leading to a fiery hell or cool oasis, depending on your general view of the DC properties and their plan to rival Marvel on the big screen. And if you don't LOVE this one, well that is okay, because don't forget that Suicide Squad will be along soon enough, as well as a Wonder Woman movie (which, based on the impression made by the character in this movie, could be a very good thing indeed - but that will come later).
This is a movie that apparently garnered such a positive reception at the screening for certain studio execs that new Batman Ben Affleck was immediately signed on for more movies and everyone started to simply look at their about-to-soar stock shares whenever their partners were unable to bring them to orgasm. That last bit is untrue. Of course. But I have to state the untrueness of it . . . . . . . just in case.
And then it was released. Audiences were good. Ticket sales seemed in line with the predictions. And critics unleashed a large selection of reviews that seemed to come perilously close to calling this a big, fat turkey. Articles started to appear in support of the movie. Many articles started to appear that tried picking apart just what it got wrong. And a perceived divide between critics and audiences seemed to widen. But was that really the case? It's far too early to decide whether or not this film will end up proving to be a bit of a financial disappointment, compared simply to what Warner Bros. are obviously expecting from it, but I've heard from very few people who unequivocally loved it. Do we regular cinema-goers invest that little bit more just because we've already invested our money in a ticket? I actually suspect that we do. Pair that up with the growing feeling that many critics have in the internet age, that they're becoming less and less necessary in a world in which quotes can be culled from blogs (I know, I know, I guess I may well be part of the problem) and Twitter alike, and you can start to appreciate why it is probably easier for critics to either lambast a film or heap great praise upon it. They're seeing it for free, and we live in a world that demands more and more hyperbole to grab attention amidst the vast material adrift in cyberspace.
Anyway, let's get to the film itself.
The title really tells you everything you need to know. Henry Cavill is back in the role of Superman, Amy Adams also returns as Lois Lane, and Ben Affleck is a certain Gotham resident. During the events that took place at the climax of Man Of Steel, Bruce Wayne saw many innocent bystanders die. He decides that Superman is a powerful threat. And many others start to agree with him, leading to debates about power and morality. Oh, and Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) plans to pit the two heroes against one another. And Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) is on the scene. And a few other familiar characters, giving fleeting cameos. Which just about covers everything, apart from the inclusion of one more major element, featured in the trailers. Doomsday.
I'd better start by clarifying that I didn't love Man Of Steel (please see the review hyperlinked above). As much as I often like the work of Zack Snyder - and, believe me, I am one of the few who enjoyed Sucker Punch - I think that he fundamentally misunderstood just what makes Superman so super. Henry Cavill was superb in the main role, and he continues to be superb this time around. But there was certainly a lot of room for improvement.
The good news is that BvS DOES hold up as a move in the right direction. There are some interesting themes and ideas in the mix, with one or two moments of dialogue nicely summing up the different views of the main characters. Visually, it's a slightly brighter film than Man Of Steel, certainly when it comes to Superman himself and the scenes that show Metropolis not in any immediate danger. And most of the newcomers do themselves proud. Ben Affleck is fine as Bruce Wayne/Batman but I'd still put him just below both Keaton and Bale. Jeremy Irons is a wonderful Alfred. Gal Gadot doesn't get too much to do, but she does well enough with what she's given.
The action scenes are also pretty well done, with the main event being the unsurprising highlight of the film. It's a shame that the climax goes down the overblown, overly-CGI route (although it's still not as ineffective and ultimately dull as the videogame that made up the grand finale of Avengers: Age Of Ultron). And it's all grounded quite nicely, which is pleasantly unexpected, considering the characters being portrayed.
Now let me get to the bad stuff.
Snyder seems to continue misunderstanding the main character, with the additional damage caused by him also now misunderstanding Batman. Perhaps it's best to blame the writers (Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer) but Snyder has always seemed to be a director able to put his vision directly on to the screen, and this time around his vision jars when set against the long history of these characters in comic book form. It's easier to forgive this time, however, as viewers should be able to accept a little bit of "fudging of the details" to line things up for the battle and the cinematic growth of this universe. There's certainly nothing here as bad as the major mis-step that many people criticised in Man Of Steel, and the fact that it uses the end of that movie as a developmental stepping stone almost makes me re-evaluate my opinion of it. Almost.
The bigger problem comes from some of the casting. I like Jesse Eisenberg. I've often REALLY liked him onscreen. And I think he's the absolutely worst Lex Luthor in the history of onscreen Lex Luthors. There's no way around it. His motives are murky, at best. His mannerisms are ridiculously over-emphatic. And a weak villain unbalances any standard "good vs evil" tale. Ezra Miller may only be seen for less than a minute, but that's some casting that I can't get behind (see the movie to see who he is portraying). And then you have Kevin Costner and Diane Lane. They're not bad here, but their presence feels unnecessary, as if they've been shoehorned in just to keep the cast prestigious enough. Which isn't necessary when you have a couple of scenes featuring Holly Hunter reminding people how great Holly Hunter can be.
Last, but by no means least, we have the editing. Despite the runtime, the pacing isn't really a problem here, but there are some unnecessary sequences that I couldn't help thinking would have been better left on the cutting-room floor. One dream sequence too many is mildly irritating, but using one dream as a potential prophecy/warning is downright lazy.
Despite the flaws here, I decided to be generous to BvS. It actually does everything that it sets out to do. Comparing it to other movies isn't always going to leave it in the best light, but that isn't always going to be fair either (particularly when comparing it to any of the now-well-established Marvel outings). This is an impressive blockbuster. It's got some great imagery, with a sequence set during a Day Of The Dead celebration standing out as a personal favourite, it's got one or two ingredients too many being stirred into a big pot, and it's got a handful of small delights in pretty much every sequence. Considering what Snyder was tasked with, it's hard to think of a final product ticking as many boxes as this one does.
And it's got plenty of people excited for the upcoming Wonder Woman movie. Which can't be a bad thing.
Okay, let me be clear on one thing here, right from the start. Adam Sandler is very probably far too busy enjoying his millions and millions of dollars to worry about how the general public, or perhaps just those who are more vocal online, have decided to loathe him. So to think that he needs, or even wants, any defence is pretty ridiculous. Despite some people now labelling him as one of the very worst things about modern mainstream cinema. This small article is just my own way of letting off some steam and hashing out some thoughts. Yes, it's like almost every other article/review on this blog.
Adam Sandler is, at the time of me writing this post, 49 years old. And he's been trying to make audiences laugh with his onscreen antics for just over 2/3 of his laugh. Despite appearing in a variety of movies - such as Going Overboard, Mixed Nuts, Airheads and Billy Madison - and the American institution that is SNL, Sandler REALLY managed to strike gold with Happy Gilmore, a golf-centric comedy that used his angry manchild schtick to great effect. This was the film that, as far as I can tell, started to get him known internationally. The next film didn't do much for his profile, although Bulletproof is a fun action comedy, but it was only a couple of years later that The Wedding Singer paired Sandler up with the adorable Drew Barrymore, an onscreen pairing that would eventually lead to us also receiving 50 First Dates and Blended (for better or for worse).
But outwith that somewhat winning romcom formula, Sandler has spent his time mixing his projects up more than many could have ever expected. He has created an ensemble of friends that he likes to work with (as you can tell from watching the Grown Ups movies, That's My Boy, Pixels, Jack And Jill, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and many more), but he has also taken occasional dramatic turns (most notably subverting his comedic angry outbursts in the superb Punch-Drunk Love, although I also recommend checking out Spanglish) and has taken on strange, albeit high concept, fare such as Click and The Cobbler. Does any of this make up for the awfulness of Eight Crazy Nights? No, but I'll always have The Waterboy so it's all good. Oh, I'd better mention Just Go With It so that I can link to my review.
A few things happened over the past year or so that made me think about just how I, in contrast to some other fine folks, view Adam Sandler (and, believe me, I have actually seen most of his filmography - and I even find You Don't Mess With The Zohan hilarious . . . . . . because it is). The first major incident was when Rose McGowan brought a LOT of attention to a casting note that read as follows: "Please make sure to read the attached script before coming in so you
understand the context of the scenes. Wardrobe note: Black (or dark)
form-fitting tank that shows off cleavage (push-up bras encouraged). And
formfitting leggings or jeans. Nothing white."
I don't work in Hollywood, or any part of the film industry, so I don't know if this is a common occurence. McGowan was highlighting the disparity between the genders and the constant differing standards placed on women who are all fighting for roles that can often be little more than eye candy. I ain't going to argue with that. All I will say is that a) Adam Sandler makes movies in which gorgeous women seem to have fallen in love with Adam Sandler, which should let you know what the role involves right there, and b) I think casting notes have sometimes specified what people should wear. I am not saying that either of these things SHOULD be, please bear that in mind. I am just saying that they are. Unless they actually aren't, and if that is the case then feel free to correct me, and pelt me with rotten veg, and so on and so forth.
The second main "Sandler scandal" occurred when about a dozen Native American actors walked off the set of The Ridiculous 6 due to their displeasure of certain aspects of the movie. As well as my not working in any part of the film industry, I am also not a Native American. So I can't say what feelings would well up in me if I saw the bad, broad jokes peppering the script of The Ridiculous 6. All I can say is that, when I finally saw it, I didn't think it was as bad as many people were expecting it to be. Oh, it had a certain air of awfulness. But I never felt that Native Americans were actually the butt of any of the jokes (beyond some juvenile character names). Of course, I can say that from a privileged position. But I have often said that I have never been offended by my own race (the Scots) being depicted in broad strokes for comedic effect. Scrooge McDuck, Braveheart and Begbie don't exactly give us a broad range of idols. And that's after the years spent washing my brain out after realising that The Krankies were actually husband and wife.
That incident allowed people to further bemoan Sandler and loudly announce that the deal he made with Netflix would result in a selection of movies they would never watch if their lives depended on it. And, really, it's that strange palpable loathing of Sandler that got me thinking. Why DO people now seem to hate him?
Yes, he's been reworking his style for a number of years now. The law of diminishing returns comes into effect when you take so many trips back to the same well, but the exact same criticism could be levelled at Bill Murray, Ben Stiller, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Downey Jr, Steven Seagal, Quentin Tarantino. I like all of those people. Well, apart from Seagal (and even he managed to give us some good stuff before he got too lazy to even hire convincing stunt doubles).
He works with the same people again and again, and a number of his movies feel like they were just made as an excuse for everyone to have fun and maybe have a paid holiday. Yep, and if only every movie star was so lucky. The same thing could be said about Burt Reynolds, at his peak, Steven Soderbergh, numerous Samuel L. Jackson movies (doesn't he make movies depending on where he wants to play golf, or am I misremembering?), Brett Ratner, etc.
He goes for the easy gags. Yes, he totally does. And, you know what, sometimes the easy gags are still funny. And many comics will go for the easy gags if they want to get a laugh.
His movies are offensive. Well, you know, comedy sometimes offends. Particularly when people seem to be on the prowl for something to be offended by. If you're offended by the very fact that Sandler still gets big bucks for his comedy then that's something I can understand. I don't agree, but I understand it. If you're offended by the content of his movies then I just don't get it. Oh, I am sure there ARE some offensive gags, especially considering the level of humour that Sandler and co. always seem to aim for, but I do think that there's an even quality to his movies that just sets up everyone to be the butt of at least one broad gag.
Ah, maybe I should actually try to make a point here. If there is even a point to be made. Remember way back in that first paragraph when I mentioned that some people now cite Sandler as someone they can hold up as the worst of mainstream cinema? Or, at the very least, he's often thrown into conversations now as a figure who can be held up to represent all that cinephiles hate.
I absolutely understand why Sandler isn't for everyone. He specialises in marketing dumb, and that usually ends up with films that are either smart and hilarious or just, funnily enough, dumb. When he fails then his films end up in the latter category. And many would say that he fails with every new addition to his filmography, certainly more often than he succeeds. But viewing him as the evil one who will herald the end of decent comedy movies as we know them is akin to calling Michael Bay the man who killed action cinema. Neither claim is true. Neither claim is remotely close to being true. And sometimes such hyperbole will spur me to write something. Even if I could have used this time to enjoy a rewatch of Hotel Transylvania.
One last thing. I tend not to let personal morals affect my movie
viewing choices. That allows me to watch Polanski movies, Chaplin
flicks, and many more films that would otherwise be off the table if I
only watched films by, or involving, people who were all upstanding
members of their communities. I would just add, however, as the final
exhibit in this rambling, unnecessary, even unwanted, defence of Sandler
that I have never heard or seen anything about his offscreen
personality that makes him seem like anything other than a down to
earth, sweet, caring guy who loves his family, loves his friends, and
loves being allowed to be silly for a career.
Which is where I can end this post, as I am sure anyone who read this far will be grateful to see.
It seems like not a day goes by lately without me seeing something that starts to get my hackles rising. But that's the internet, right? It's just an avalanche of everything from everyone . . . . . . everywhere. And being bothered by it is about as useful as being bothered by a cloudy day during a Scottish summer, right? On the one hand, yes. But it's also good to let off some steam now and again. And I am going to do that right now as I highlight some important differences.
There's a difference between not liking something and being offended by it. If you happen to be, for example, a British man named Kevin (like, hmmmm, me) and someone makes a joke that happens to make fun of someone called Kevin then that isn't actually a reason to be offended. If you were a gay, British man named Kevin then that would not automatically make the joke-teller a homophobe. As long as the joke was still just about a general Kevin. But even if it was a joke about YOU, it's still not terrible if it's about your general Kevin-ness, as opposed to your sexuality. And using stereotypes and exaggerated negative attitudes to make a point is not the same as actually endorsing either. It's often a tightrope-walk, no argument from me there, but people are too quick in this time of split-second judgment to jump to whatever conclusion allows them to start fighting their good fight for the day.
There's a difference between supporting friends or favourite artists and just blindly endorsing everything that they do as one of the best things ever. I have a lot of friends who put creative works out there and I would never want to tell them if/that they suck. It's not nice. But I would offer constructive criticism, whenever possible, or just keep my mouth shut. Foaming at the mouth with praise for something just because a) someone is a friend or, more commonly, b) you hope to connect with someone famous online will only make your opinion worthless and stunt the potential growth of the people you may want to lend real support to. It's even worse than just saying "good job".
Writing a "clickbait" headline or Top 10 article is not usually the same as writing something that's actually worth the time a reader can spend on it. It's an easy way to get your numbers up, whoopeee, but I've recently discovered that taking the easier way to get your numbers up actually works against you. People respond better to you if they know that you're actually putting some thought into what you're writing. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you won't BELIEVE what happens next.
Although folks can pretend otherwise, nobody knows everything. That's okay. Don't pretend to know everything. The best thing you can do, most times, is to know what you don't know. If that makes sense. And admit it. Because you'll be caught out eventually.
Having a different opinion to others is not the same as starting an argument. I've seen plenty of polite and civil disagreements online, and loads of healthy conversation that have stemmed from them. In fact, some of my most enjoyable discussions have developed from a difference of opinion. Of course, this is accompanied by the proviso that we should remember that not all opinions are equally valid. That's not to say that someone who hates John Carpenter movies isn't entitled to hate John Carpenter movies, but if they've only seen Ghosts Of Mars and Vampires, for example, and are weighing them against the likes of The Shining, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Suspiria, etc. then it's not exactly the same criteria being used to contrast and compare his filmography.
Last, but not least, there's a difference between writing carelessly and writing without a care. The latter should be your default position. Please yourself and perhaps sometimes other people will also enjoy it. But write carelessly and you will probably end up pleasing nobody.
Although he's become, arguably, a much more divisive figure in recent years, Quentin Tarantino is a director who certainly knows how to sell his product. The hype machine for The Hateful Eight started up quite a while ago, and continues while the movie is on release (thanks to the limited 70mm screenings - which are even more limited here in the UK, unfortunately). Which makes it hard to process if you come out of the cinema having not completely loved one of his films. Thankfully, that's a rare occurence. Aside from Death Proof (which I still rate as a solid 7/10) and the second volume of Kill Bill, I've never felt disappointed by Tarantino. I have an idea of what to expect going in, and he delivers.
The Hateful Eight is his second Western, coming along after his first full feature in the genre (the superb Django Unchained). Whereas the film before it, however, was a lively mixture of violence, comedy, and discomfort, The Hateful Eight turns out to be quite a different animal. Despite still having a similar mix of ingredients, in differing amounts (which I guess you could say about every Tarantino film, of course).
Kurt Russell plays John Ruth, a man travelling with a woman named Daisy Domergue (played by Jennifer Jason Leigh). He's taking Daisy to the town of Red Rock to collect a bounty and see her hung. Unfortunately, the wagon that the pair are travelling in can barely keep ahead of a blizzard that's on their tails. Major Marquis Warren (played by Samuel L. Jackson) is stuck in the snow, and eventually receives a life from Ruth. As does Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), a little while later. And the new quartet get themselves to Minnie's Haberdashery, just in time to get much-needed shelter and warmth, where they meet some other men who are also avoiding the blizzard. But everything might not be as it seems.
Taking cues from his previous works, Agatha Christie, and The Thing, Tarantino would seem to have lined up another treat for fans. The cast certainly stay on the top of their game - alongside those mentioned, viewers will enjoy turns from Bruce Dern, Tim Roth, and Michael Madsen, as well as a few others. The premise is solid. And the framing and cinematography is often gorgeous, even if the majority of the movie takes place in the one location.
The big surprise here is also the biggest disappointment. The writing isn't up to scratch. Oh, there are moments that will tickle your earbuds, and moments that I am sure the cast absolutely relished sinking their teeth into, but there are also some big mis-steps. For example, one scene shows a character who barely brings himself to talk to another character, except in anger. But that only last a few scenes, only until Tarantino NEEDS the characters to talk in order to set up a big scene. Then we have two scenes that utilise a voiceover narration because, well, I just don't know why. If the whole movie had the same kind of commentary then it would be fine, or if the scenes couldn't be expressed in a purely visual manner, but it doesn't and they could. Making the decision to clumsily chat over just a couple of random scenes quite a bewlidering one.
The other aspect of the writing to cause some frustration is the level of self-cannibalising that Tarantino indulges in. Viewers know that you can rely on ol' QT to pepper his movies with a veritable cornucopia of references to other films, which is part of the joy, but when he sprinkles in enough moments that feel as if they're referencing his own past glories then it's hard not to think that you're watching a copy of a copy, inevitably appearing as a weaker image. Even the one or two songs used on the soundtrack don't feel right. They just feel as if they've been put there by a man who knows that it's expected of him. This may seem like a minor niggle, and something not worthy of this full paragraph, but once it's noticed it then becomes hard to completely enjoy the movie without considering the shadow cast over it.
But let me clarify something. Although I have gone on about the negative aspects of the movie, I still had a hell of a great time with The Hateful Eight. I was on board as soon as Russell and Jackson started to speak to one another and every subsequent character introduction set another smile on my face (especially Roth, who really should be getting more great movie roles). There's an original score by Ennio Morricone for fans to enjoy. And when the script works, as it does in many instances, then you can revel in the simple pleasure of great actors delivering great lines.
Overall, this is far from his best work. But I'll take a lesser Tarantino movie over many other viewing choices, any day.
NB - due to the fact that I don't live within a reasonable distance of Leicester Square in London, the version of the movie that I watched wasn't the full 70mm version, that comes complete with a few minutes of extra footage, overture, and intermission. BUT all of you lucky Edinburgh folk, and anyone near enough to commute, DO get the chance to see the full version next month, at The Filmhouse - http://www.filmhousecinema.com/showing/the-hateful-eight-70mm-feb16/
As is my habit, I will add my small amount of opinion to the deluge of Top 10 lists and best/worst pieces that always populate the internet at this time of year. The lack of daily writing on this here blog should not be taken as a sign that my movie viewing schedule has become any less cluttered. Indeed, the opposite may well be true. Cinema trips, my growing movie collection, film festivals, and even one or two screener discs - all of them have helped to fill up my year, cinematically speaking, and my appetite remains as strong as ever.
Although only one made it on to my Top 10 list for this year, 2015 could very well be labelled as the year of the spy movie. Spy, Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation, The Man From U.N.C.L.E, Mortdecai (much maligned by almost everyone, except me), Spooks: The Greater Good and Bridge Of Spies were just a few of the secret agent movies you could see this year. Oh, and there was a limited release you might have noticed for a film entitled Spectre. There were more, but I won't list them all here. Suffice to say, fans of spy capers should have been kept very happy this year.
But what else was pleasing folks? Well, the box office figures can show you what went down well with most viewers (big hitters included Jurassic World and Furious 7). And all I can tell you is what I ended up enjoying the most. And here they are:
9. Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation - It's slightly overlong, a bit choppily edited in the hand to hand action scenes, and highly derivative of both recent Bond movies and past M:I flicks, but this is the mainstream action film gold standard in 2015 during the major set-pieces. The cast all have a lot of fun, as does Christopher McQuarrie - fitting into the franchise like hand in glove with the great chase sequences, moral ambiguity, and grit scattered throughout the gloss.
8. The Lobster - It certainly won't be for everyone, and one particular scene will upset animal lovers, but no film this year has made me laugh and wince in equal measure more than The Lobster. It's horrifying at times, it's deeply upsetting, and it's also downright hilarious. Colin Farrell gives a wonderful lead performance, but nobody involved (Ashley Jensen, John C. Reilly, Ben Whishaw, Olivia Colman, etc.) hits a wrong note. Surreal, sometimes sick, and sublime.
7. Inherent Vice - This would have been on a few lists for 2014, but it's worth remembering that this movie was released here in the UK in January 2015. Inherent Vice is yet another masterwork from Paul Thomas Anderson. When I first saw it I gave it 8/10 but it's a film that rewards repeat viewings, thanks to the density of the plotting, the performances, and the general atmosphere throughout that left me feeling in the same headspace as the main character (a brilliant, comedic performance from Joaquin Phoenix).
6. Inside Out - My full review for this one is here.
5. Precinct Seven Five - Can you guess? Yep, my full review is here.
And my interview with Mike O'Dowd is right here. I recommend it, but I am biased.
4. The Pyramid Texts - Although it sits here at number 4, this is probably the film, and indeed the performance, that I most implore people to seek out. I reviewed it here.
3. The Martian - Matt Damon may be the titular character, and he may have most of the screentime (by far), but this is a fantastic sci-fi movie that benefits from a fine ensemble - Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Kristen Wiig, Sean Bean, and many more - and a fine return to form by one of my favourite directors, Ridley Scott. The soundtrack is also surprisingly upbeat and lively, considering the tension of the scenario unfolding onscreen.
2. Mad Max: Fury Road - A revving and crunching blend of frenetic action, nightmarish imagery, top tier performances from all the main players, and just a perfect cinema experience. George Miller has been given the funding and support to realise an epic vision, allowing for this instalment to be the best Mad Max movie yet. And that's quite a feat.
1. Star Wars: The Force Awakens - J. J. Abrams basically repeats a lot of the tricks that he used in Star Trek Into Darkness, with one major difference. This time he doesn't also try to be clever and tricksy with viewers. And it works beautifully. The new cast/characters are uniformly excellent, the familiar faces pop up to help move things along, the effects are fantastic without feeling overblown, and the pacing is perfect. I came out of the cinema smiling, I was keen to talk about everything I'd just seen, and (perhaps most amazing of all) I was already dying to see the next instalment. CAN NOT WAIT!
There are many, many other films worth mentioning. I'll try to list most of them here: Cop Car, The Diary Of A Teenage Girl, When Animals Dream, Joy, Brooklyn, Black Mass, The Editor, Musaranas AKA Shrew's Nest, Cub AKA Welp, The Road Within, Future Shock: The Story Of 2000 AD, Song Of The Sea, The Falling, Steve Jobs, Straight Outta Compton, Love & Mercy, Legend, Sicario, Mistress America, Creed and more.
EDIT: I have only just realised that this list misses out some MAJOR favourites of mine, titles such as Birdman and Whiplash, for example. Unfortunately, my memory is more fallible than ever, and these titles tend to be released at the turn of the year, with both of those named hitting the US in 2014 and eventually being released here at the start of 2015. Needless to say, both deserve a high placing in the above list.
Disappointments for the year included, but were not limited to, the following (and I won't repeat my opinion on Spectre which I linked to above): Cooties, Goodnight Mommy, The Good Dinosaur, Gravy, Macbeth, Terminator Genisys.
And the worst of the year: Poltergeist, Dracula Reborn, The Gallows, The Incident, Man Up.
Now, having made these lists (and I AM terrible at making lists), it could be noted that not one horror made it into my Top 10, while a number of them were selected as disappointments or outright bad movies. I'm sure that many will rush to cite 2015 as "another bad year for horror" but that's not the case. It may look like it here, but that's only because a) I saw so many great films at EIFF 2015 b) the quality of the blockbusters this year was pretty damn good, overall, and c) I watch a LOT of horror movies, which also means I watch a lot of crap horror movies. It's a sad truth that I have watched the likes of Sharknado 3 and Lavalantula while other, most probably better, horror movies have passed me by. Hey, I can't see everything. It's just unfortunate that I keep trying to, without thinking about perhaps prioritising my choices. At least I still managed to see the likes of Crimson Peak and Deathgasm, two horror movies that show how fantastic the genre can be in two very different ways.
Here's to the year ahead. I hope it's good to you, equally good to me, and full to the brim with even more filmic fun.
And please feel free to visit Amazon.com from here or Amazon.co.uk, or any Amazon really. Using links from this blog helps to reward this blog, which is a win win for me.
Yes, it's that time of year again. I get to drink mulled wine, wear amusingly horrid sweaters, and watch lots and lots of Christmas movies. Of course, not every Christmas movie can be an It's A Wonderful Life, an Elf, a Christmas Vacation, or a Bad Santa. And Shane Black only has so many workdays to provide us with snow-covered action greatness. But you can still have a lot of fun exploring the movies that can be found on Hallmark Channel, ABC Family, Channel 5 (here in the UK), and any other channel screening one bauble after another during the festive season. Many of them hit the same beats, many of them contain the same ingredients, and that actually ends up providing part of the enjoyment. I don't watch Christmas movies to be blown away by great cinema. I watch them to feel Christmassy and see the type of settled, crisp snow that we don't get here in Edinburgh (when we get snow here it either tends not to melt away quickly or become churned up by traffic and footfall).
So here are the main ingredients I see as necessities for every Christmas movie.
1) A title with an obvious festive link. Throw in the word Santa or Christmas, of course, and you're all set. But you can also use anything with the number twelve (The 12 Dogs Of Christmas, The 12 Disasters Of Christmas, 12 Dates Of Christmas, Twelve Trees Of Christmas, etc, etc) or just stick the word holiday in there (Holiday Inn, obviously, Holiday Affair, Holiday In Handcuffs). And using, or misappropriating, a famous Christmas Carol title or phrase can always work (a la every movie in the Silent Night, Deadly Night series).
2) Snow. You CAN have a Christmas movie without snow but I can't think of any examples just now. Snow doesn't automatically equal a Christmas movie, however, but the two go together like milk and cookies. There's even a Christmas movie simply called Snow (which also has a sequel).
3) An abundance of decorations, HUGE trees, and everything else that we don't always tend to have here in the UK. Much like the Halloween decorations, America really pulls out all the stops for Christmas. There are people who also do the same over here but they're a bit fewer and farther between. If you can reach the top of your tree without a stepladder in America then you may need to go shopping for a bigger tree. And it's that kind of spectacle that makes me watch average Christmas movie after average Christmas movie.
4) The main character names. Here are the most popular choices, based purely on my recollection of the many movies I have watched and with no grounding in actual facts or scientific study (apologies, but it's the way of the internet so I should be okay): Carol, Nick, Chris, Kate. The first three are obviously connected to the season. The fourth is just a popular common name to use in TV movies, as far as I know.
5) The cast can make the difference between your movie being simply distracting or moderately enjoyable. You could always choose to rope in some celebrity who is a bit past their prime, either for a main or supporting role. Or you could hire Christina Milian,who has popped up in a few Christmas TV movies, or Lindy Booth.
6) Romance. Many of the movies I've already mentioned have a love story at the heart of them. Even Santa himself has been looking for love in a few movies (such as Single Santa Seeks Mrs. Claus). It would seem that Christmas is the best time of year to find love, possibly because it can be viewed as a gift and a shot at redemption for some.
7) A non-believer. Whether it's someone doubting the existence of Santa Claus or even completely refusing to give in to the many delights of the season, every festive film should have a Scrooge.
8) Santa. Why did it take me this long to list Santa? Well, just as many Christmas movies don't feature the jolly fat fellow. But even when he's not in the middle of the action he's often watching over the main characters, perhaps helping to tweak destinies and cause happiness whenever possible. When he's not running the operation at The North Pole, figuring out how to keep his magic working and trying to make sure Christmas isn't ruined for everyone (e.g. Santa Claus, The Santa Clause, and many more).
9) Elves. You could easily argue that elves have saved Christmas a lot more times than Santa. They make the toys, they often make the best hot chocolates, and someone has to clean up all that reindeer dung. Yes, elves appear in many Christmas movies. And if they're not onscreen then you can usually find a character who has certain elfin qualities.
10) Kids. I know, I know, I should have mentioned them earlier. Christmas is for the young, and the young at heart, so it's no surprise to find so many of the movies featuring children. If there's not a main role for a doe-eyed minor then you can usually find them in a supporting role that will either perk up the lead or remind everyone of the true meaning of Christmas. Having a "Tiny" Tim often helps to add some extra magic to the grand finale.
11) Ending on a miracle is acceptable in any Christmas movie. In fact, it's almost obligatory. The miracle can be big (someone finding the power to get up out of a wheelchair and walk, for example) or small (friends coming around to help someone with that competition entry that could lead to a much-needed grand prize win).
12) If you can get a popular tune in there then that is the bow wrapped around the main present. A bit of "Let It Snow" is always welcome, but the musical score just has to reference "The Dance Of The Sugar Plum Fairy" and I am happy.
Yes, I absolutely agree with you. Why would I do this to myself? Why, when I no longer feel the need to fill up my blog every single day with ramblings about what I've been watching, why do I choose to expend my time and energy on a bit of a ramble about Spice World? Well, maybe it's because I actually enjoy Spice World. And maybe it's because it's a film that needs more defending than most.
Before I go any further, and before I lose you (if I haven't already), let me emphasise that I don't actually view Spice World as a good, or great, movie. It's not really supposed to be. The Spice Girls aren't the best actresses in the world, at least one or two of them aren't even that good at the actual singing part of their job, but they don't have to be. And the script isn't that clever or deep or witty. Guess what, it doesn't have to be.
If you view Spice World as a movie then you'll be sorely disappointed. It's a time capsule, and when it was first released it was an opportunity for fans to have some fun in the company of The Spice Girls. And that doesn't mean Emma, Mel, Melanie, Geri, and Victoria. No way. This is a film that goes out of its way to strengthen their brand, a film that keeps viewers in the company of Baby Spice, Scary Spice, Sporty Spice, Ginger Spice, and Posh Spice. The personalities are heightened, sometimes being mocked but more often than not being embraced, and the other characters around them (mainly a manager played by Richard E. Grant and a documentarian played by Alan Cumming, who must have relished the chance to help skew similar material in Josie & The Pussycats) are just there to set up every scene for the girls.
Cameo roles abound, with the list of a-to-z celebrities including, but not limited to: Elton John, Jonathan Ross, Meat Loaf, Bill Paterson, Roger Moore, George Wendt, Hugh Laurie, Stephen Fry, Jennifer Saunders, Jason Flemyng, Bob Geldof, Kevin Allen, Michael Barrymore, and Bob Hoskins. You can have plenty of fun just spotting the familiar faces. You can also have plenty of fun, honest, if you allow yourself to applaud the stars of the shows for at least livening up the screen with their usual mix of energy, humour, and sheer will.
You can judge me and laugh all you want. The Spice Girls left their mark on the world of modern pop because of the perfect mix of product and packaging. There was something for everyone, aesthetically speaking, and the songs were upbeat and catchy. This movie captures that appeal, gives a little taste of what it felt like when Girl Power took over the UK in the late 1990s (hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm referring to the band and their ethos). And that's what it set out to do. If only I had such a perfect movie snapshot for Carter USM, dammit.
Over the past few days, and for at least a few days ahead, you will no doubt have seen/will see plenty of online critiques of Jessica Jones, the latest Marvel TV show helping to build an enjoyable, cohesive, superhero universe on Netflix that complements the recent cinematic output from the comic book powerhouse. Would it be able to compete with the great success of Daredevil, the previous show that premiered on the streaming service?
Dare you to miss Jessica Jones
For the relatively uninitiated, the titular character is played by Krysten Ritter. The main villain, a man who can use mind control to make others do his bidding, is a man named Kilgrave, played with superb charm and menace by David Tennant. And Rachael Taylor and Carrie-Anne Moss play important, supporting female roles. Oh, and fans of comic books may also like seeing Mike Colter as Luke Cage.
From timelord to mind ruler
I am not going to be breaking down elements of this show. I haven't read the source material. I don't want to comment on each episode individually. If you're after that then you can browse at least three dozen other websites (at a conservative estimate).
No. After watching all 13 episodes of Jessica Jones in record time (for me, anyway), I was compelled to praise it for a depth that I hadn't at all expected. Daredevil was about the dangers, and moral quandary, of vigilante justice. It also generally kicked ass, and had yet another astonishing performance from Vincent D'Onofrio, a man who can probably deliver astonishing performances in his sleep.
Jessica Jones may be equal in the kicking ass stakes, almost, and may benefit immensely from that Tennant performance, but the most impressive thing about it is that, both overtly and in so many layered ways, it's about consent and control. It's there at the forefront, of course, with a villain who can make people do exactly what he wants them to. But that's almost irrelevant when the series starts to show more of the supporting characters and their relationships with one another.
Living, or just surviving?
Jones herself, for example, likes the feeling of self-control she can get by slumming it as a private eye, allowing her to seek out information that other people will use, while also helping her to keep a low profile. Jeryn Hogarth (played by Moss) is a powerful lawyer who quickly shows a very controlling, indeed ruthless, personality. She's involved in a bit of a . . . . . . . . complicated situation with her love life, and as things develop we get to see more and more instances of her trying to control those around her and keep them acting in her own best interests. Wil Traval plays Will Simpson, a man who first encounters Trish Walker (Taylor) in a violent scene before looking to create a, to put it simply, better second first impression with her later on. He apologises profusely, seemingly very sincere while always having the excuse that it wasn't actually him in control of his own actions. But what part of that provides full justification for the actions of the people onscreen, and what part of it is a very handy get-out clause for anyone who knows how Kilgrave works? Even the main villain, as shown in the most interesting backstory sequences, spits out pathetic, wheedling lines like: "what's the point in having ears if you don't listen to me?"
That may not sound like a particularly interesting piece of dialogue, but it sums up everything the show covers - as does the episode title itself, AKA 1000 Cuts.
And that really is just the tip of the iceberg - a mass made up of guilt, resentment, debated responsibilities, more apologies, obsession, and lots and lots (and LOTS) of emotional manipulation.
Jessica and "Patsy"
While it's decidedly not aimed at kids, and really don't just let your kids sit down to watch this (although I'd say teens won't be too scarred by anything here), it's impressive that this show has such a strong, yet flawed, female lead, and addresses issues that we've previously seen dressed up and romanticised in the likes of Twilight and 50 Shades Of Grey.
AKA Badass
There is plenty more to dig into here, and I am sure that better minds than my own have already started on that, but this post is here just as an attempt to encourage anyone to watch the show. Whether you like "superhero" fare or not, this is well worth your time. And I hope the continuing relationship between Marvel and Netflix delivers more of this fascinating content.
Moving away from the huste and bustle of the centre of Edinburgh, walking down the main road that runs through Morningside, and then turning into Springvalley Gardens will take you into . . . . . . . Springvalley Gardens. But take one more right turn, through an unspectacular archway that looks like it leads to nothing more than one or two small business, and you will find yourself here (see pics). Edinburgh's own little slice of the Wild West.
Wells Fargo, of course.
Props Tom L Shattuck and Charlie Fick
There have been a number of articles that have highlighted this quirky attraction over the years, and I kept reading about it and then almost immediately forgetting to check it out. Recently, however, articles about the area have also taken the time to warn people that the building frontages have fallen into disrepair over the years. Probably a mix of our usual weather and standard city life encroaching further into ever nook and cranny of Edinburgh (as I was taking photos I tried my best to hide the more modern signage telling me about the area being monitored by CCTV, amongst other things).
And that spurred me on, no pun intended. I had to see this place before it disappeared. Perhaps when it's gone there will be no way to know it was ever there. Nothing apart from memories and maybe some photos. Like these ones.
Barkeep? Barkeep!!!!
I'm the law round these here parts.
But even the law likes a drink on occasion.
So get along to it, have a look while it's still there. Here is a map (WW = Wild West, obviously).
While digging around for the origins of this Edinburgh anomaly, I discovered that the main man behind it was a Michael Faulkner (as mentioned in this Edinburgh Spotlight article). That led me to a blog written by Faulkner, in which the following is written in a 1 May 2010 entry:
"When we were designing the facades for the township of 'El Paso', which
took three of us (Sean, Rab and I) four months to build and which formed
the exterior of my Santa Fe furniture business in Edinburgh, we used
stills from Cat Ballou, along with several other classic westerns, for inspiration. This is the only digital image I can dig up:
*please visit blog entry linked to see original image*
When the photograph was taken the signage, which we were at pains to get
right, was incomplete but most of the structure was in place. As well
as the railroad, general store, jail house, cantina and livery stables
which you can see, we built a saloon, sheriff's office and stagecoach
depot which are out of shot to the left.
We were proud of the place but I don't like to go back now, as the
closure of the business was a big part of an even bigger life
reversal. As far as I know the structure is still in place, ten years
on, in Springvalley Gardens, Morningside"
And here are some more photos.
Not even big enough to be a one horse town
Not gonna lie. I got wood.
Not bragging, but I think I could escape that one.
Nobody would trade with me today.
And some more.
I asked for some new shoes for my horse. I'm still waiting.
I hope they get back in the saddle some day.
Y'all come back now.
I've done it now. Marked it off my small, and not very interesting, bucket list. And I encourage others to do the same. Embrace it while it's there. And, hey, share a pic or two to encourage friends to do the same.
Despite a recent foray in to the US market, after a successful fundraising campaign, Arrow Films have really been known as one of the best suppliers of shiny discs for home entertainment enthusiasts here in the UK for the past few years.
There HAVE been mistakes along the way (a few seconds missing from Zombie Flesh Eaters caused by the branching options, I believe, and the sepia prologue of The Beyond being black and white are two of the most notable examples, although fans are still eagerly awaiting news on the seconds that were snipped from their recent, otherwise excellent, release of Shivers).
But the rest of their output more than makes up for these mistakes. And, to be fair, the company is very good at communicating with customers and arranging replacement discs when bad things happen. They also set their RRP with a nice balance of pre-order value and the ability to supply other sellers with copies (unlike, for example, 88 Films and their American Ninja debacle, which I have yet to forgive them for - long story short, the release date was mucked around, the pricing was set incorrectly, with them denying that they were responsible for, ummmm, the pricing of their own product, and their were people very unhappy when the price was slashed not long after release).
Having always been there for the horror fans, with particular attention paid to the likes of Lucio Fulci, Dario Argento, and George A. Romero, to name a few, Arrow have now managed to surpass even those earlier releases with some recent output that will take your breath away. Or, to be fair, Arrow may have always offered such a range of quality and variety without me noticing, due to me having my head all too often buried in the horror section anyway.
You might struggle to find it at a decent price now but The Scarlet Box Hellraiser Bluray set is just about the best thing I've ever seen. Mind you, that's another horror release. As was their recent boxset of two very different movies based on The Black Cat. And their gothic Vincent Price set. And much more.
The REAL draw lately comes from their increasingly interesting journeys into releases that aren't such an easy sell. Next year will see a release of a Rainer Werner Fassbinder collection, perfect both for newcomers like me and fans who want the films displayed as beautifully as possible. There's also the Nikkatsu Diamnond Guys set (Vol 1), some more blaxploitation (Sheba, Baby is coming), the apparent beauty of the Battles Without Honour and Humanity set, and a little something entitled Kiju Yoshida: Love + Anarchism.
Are Arrow Films the only people looking after cinephiles in such a good way? No. Some fans may like to also check out the aforementioned 88 Films (I have also enjoyed Blastfighter and Night Train Murders from them) and there are some real gems being released by Eureka! And let's not forget the BFI range.
Any why am I writing all this? Well, I've been overwhelmed by awesome releases lately. That's one reason. I wanted to celebrate their greatness. The second reason, I haven't written anything here for a while. Third, and perhaps most important, is the fact that more and more people should be encouraged to use these guys and order direct from them. Arrow Films, in particular, offer both rewards points and also send orders out earlier, whenever possible, to those who have ordered from their site.
Oh, and as Christmas is coming up, you may also want to know where to get the best sweaters and tshirts. It's right here - darkbunnytees.
