karlhungus.com

Thirst

2009-10-29T00:27:00.005Z

Bakjwi (Thirst), Korea, 2009

Vampires!

They’re, like, so hot right now.

Admittedly most of this is due to the mind-boggling popularity of the Twilight saga, a series whose continued success remains a source of deep confusion and distress for this particular film-fan! Yet for the last twelve months or so, there seems to have been a considerable surge in vampirism in cinema. Luckily, for every emo vampire love story audiences also seem to be treated to an intelligent take on the vampire myth. First we had the wonderful Let the Right One In, and now Chan-wook Park has had the good sense to make Thirst.

Thirst begins with Park regular Kang-ho Song (also seen in this years spectacularly fun The Good, The Bad and The Weird) as priest Sang-hyun desperately, and often unsuccessfully, trying to heal his sick patients. He volunteers in a programme to find a cure for a fatal illness known as the Emmanuel Virus (EV). He travels to Africa to take part in the experiment, where he is subject an infected blood transfusion. After a near fatal encounter, he returns to Korea, slowly discovering his newly inherited vampirism, and begins feeding on the blood of his comatose patients through their IV drips. He then falls in love with a woman stuck in a loveless marriage. Think Twilight, but infinitely more fucked-up, with explicit sex scenes and graphic violence.

I won’t go any further in-depth into the plot, because most of the pleasure in this film is derived from the unexpected turns it often takes. At a basic level, the vampirism presented in the film is shown as a parasitic disease, as in many of the classic vampire stories. What makes the film interesting, though, is how the characters react to the disease. Sang-hyun, as a Catholic priest, is a moralistic character, unwilling to kill to feed his bloodlust, which is a radical deviation from the Nosferatu myth. It is a fascinating take on vampire mythology, the characters more human than monster. Like Let the Right One In, the film excels in fleshing out the characters while remaining loyal to the classic vampire symbolism. Sunlight still burns, and the infected are remarkably agile creatures.

Thematically, this is an extremely rich and controversial film. Issues such as religion, morality and African healthcare are bound to offend some, but this is a no-holds barred film, as is to be expected from the man who gave us demented masterpieces like Oldboy. The violence is brutal, and it is the first Korean film to feature full frontal male nudity. However, despite the extreme nature of the content, it is fascinating and intelligent viewing. The characterisation is top-notch, the narrative engaging and the humour typically dark. It is simply a fresh and exciting take on a well-explored genre. At its heart, there is a lyrical love story, that is occasionally sweet and occasionally twisted. This unusual romance acts as a solid backbone to the other thematic focuses and subplots.

For a director known for his visual extravagances (see the colourful excesses of I’m A Cyborg) the cinematography of Thirst is surprisingly muted, with the exception of some pleasant final act flourishes. This helps give the film a more personal feel. Indeed, overall Thirst is mostly character-driven, with a relatively small cast of characters. Park invests a lot of time into these people, and it builds to a poignant conclusion – which is also pretty damn funny. One issue I had with the film was a slightly dull fifteen minutes or so as it shifted into a darker third act. However, once the new thematic focus becomes clear, the ending is extremely rewarding, and felt like one of the most natural conclusions I’ve seen to a film in quite a while.

As you can probably tell, I rather liked Thirst. Park is a rare director who seems able to juggle emotionally involving stories, extreme violence, dark humour and genre inventiveness and emerge with a coherent, successful final product. It is a damn shame that this isn’t going to get a wide release when certain angsty nonsense is due once again to pollute screens (good looks win over subtitles, apparently). But Chan-wook Park reminds us that vampires aren’t all just baseball-loving dullards. Thirst is a wonderfully contemporary vampire film, one full of darkness, humour and energy. Oh, and plenty of weird-ass sex and revolting bodily mutilation. What more could you possibly want?

Zombieland

2009-10-12T23:20:00.010+01:00

If you plan to survive Zombieland then you're going to have to learn some of the rules of survival. The most important rule to lean is rule number 18: Limber Up, if you forget to do this then there's a good chance that you will leave the theatre with a sever case of sore jaw syndrome due in no small part to spending the last 80 minutes laughing your ass off.

A lot has been written regarding Zombieland's debt to Shaun of the Dead but being honest I really don't see it. Granted both films depict a Zombie pandemic utilising a mixture of horror and comedy but beyond this the films have very little in common. Shaun is a far more emotionally driven film where as Zombieland is more like The Walking Dead with added laughs. I should add that I don't buy the whole zomedy genre as I fell that horror films are entitled to contain a few laughs without instantly being categorised as comedies. No one remembers American Werewolf or Fright Night as comedies yet both have many laughs as they do scares.
Zombieland starts months after the outbreak and follows a rag tag group of survivors in their journey west. The films opens with Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) looking for a quiet place to use the bathroom. Given that most of the human population is now a member of the undead-kind this is difficult. The opening scene is fast paced and exhilarating with director Ruben Fleischer starting things with a bang and never once letting up.

From here we move into what has to be one of the greatest opening scenes in cinema history. A montage of everyday events being turned on their head by the inclusion of the undead. It's an absolutely fantastic 3 minutes and manages more laughs than most films can in 90 minutes.
Shortly after we are introduced to Tallahassee played by the ever dependable Woody Harrelson who gives one ethe years best performances. If the Oscars recognised all genres then he would certainly be a shoe in for a nom next January. Columbus and Tallahassee join forces on their journey west and are soon joined by two cone girl sisters Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) who have heard rumours that there is a place untouched by virus.

The film was originally conceived as a pilot for a TV show and at times it shows. While the characters are all interesting they do at times fell like clichés. Columbus is the typical OCD afflicted nerd we've seen a million times before and it's a credit to Eisenberg that he makes the character so immensely likeable. In recent time comparison has been drawn between Eisenberg and Michael Cera with many labelling him Cera mark 2 but if anything it should be the other way round.
Harrelson is as mentioned earlier absolutely fantastic in this and manages to bring an unexpected vulnerability to Tallahassee. The revelation regarding his dog is genuinely heartfelt and the sits alongside the opening of Up as one of this years most moving scenes.

The females of the piece don't fare as good as the men and while both Stone and Breslin are impressive their characters are nowhere near as developed as that of Tallahassee. It's obvious that in the years that the film has been in development little has been done with their characters. The promise of sequels should hopefully redress this.
The one area where the film really doesn't skimp is in the violence department. Gore fans will relish in graphic scenes of zombie death including the truly fantastic kill of the week sequence. The sporadic nature of the violence in the film means that the film never suffers from a sense of overkill and the ever growing sense of threat pays off in the final all out fight to the death between our 4 heroes and a theme park of the undead.

The term cult classic is branded about a little too much these days but if ever a film was destined for cult status it's Zombieland. Do yourself a favour and see it asap. It's easily this years most enjoyable film and one which can be watched over and over again.

Pandorum

2009-10-05T11:32:00.010+01:00

About 10 years ago, I first saw the Sci-Fi/Horror film Event Horizon, which I enjoyed immensely. Produced by Paul W.S. Anderson, Pandorum is a film that follows in the same vein. It's also the first American production from German director Christian Alvart, who previously wrote and directed the exceptional serial killer thriller Antibodies. As well as that, I'm always eager to see anything with Ben Foster. From my perspective, Pandorum had quite a lot going for it.

Paul Anderson has certainly made a lot of very terrible films, but I'll always grant that with Event Horizon he showed quite a bit or promise as a director. I'm sorry to say that some of his very worst traits have tainted Pandorum, a film that probably would have been a truly exceptional Horror if it wasn't for certain elements.

It starts out extremely well, with Bower (Foster) waking up from suspended animation on board a gigantic spaceship. He's extremely disorientated, suffering from memory loss, and the ship is seemingly malfunctioning, he can't open any doors, or get power. He manages to revive another crew member, his commanding officer, Payton (Dennis Quaid), and they manage to restore some power to a console. The following scenes are all to familiar to Alien, and have Bower crawling through ducts and maintenance tubes, with Payton monitoring his progress through the console, but the atmosphere and sense of claustrophobia here is immense. The set design and lighting are excellent, and it has a very uncomfortable feel.

But after the fantastic start, it all starts to go a bit pear shaped. The ship is crawling with creatures. Mutated ex-crew members who look and act considerably similar to the reavers in Firefly. Bower also meets two surviving human crew members, both of whom appear to be expert martial artists. One of them is a woman called Nadia (Antje Traue) who doesn't look at all dissimilar to Milla Jovovich, and as the story goes on, it starts to feel more like one of Anderson's Resident Evil films. What started as an extremely tense and psychological (if derivative) horror ends up as a farce that abandons all sense of tension and plays up the hot chick fighting monsters angle. It got me thinking to myself, what video game was this based on again?

I'm always fairly skeptical about international filmmakers who go to America, and I get the sense of director Christian Alvart being under the thumb of the producers on this one, there's too many awful Anderson-isms here. Alvart is a good director, and we get a lot of glimpses of what he's capable of here, but it just feels as though this was a good film squeezed with studio interference, that Anderson got someone to mimic his own style. That's a shame, because I had hoped for more from this.

I also wonder what must have happened with the script. The concept of 'Pandorum' is that it's a psychological disorder sustained from prolonged suspended animation that it feeds into paranoia, yet the whole notion is side-stepped for the most part in favor of lots of running down metal corridors and screaming mutants. The notions of awakening with no memory aboard a dark, malfunctioning spaceship, with the fear of someone having a dangerous paranoid delusion, it all seems like a great basis for an excellent psychological horror, but the mutant creatures element feels like it was tagged on without much cohesion.

I did enjoy it for what it was, but this is by no means a good film. I think that without the monsters, without the ass-kicking side-kicks, and most of all, without Paul W.S. Anderson, this would have been a really good film. It could have done without most of the minor characters, and it could have focused more on that claustrophobic atmosphere it had at the beginning. Ben Foster is great, especially at the beginning, and there's a lot of good ideas in Pandorum, but it's less of an Event Horizon, and more of a Resident Evil in space.

Roman Polanski - Seperating the man from the director.

2009-10-02T20:55:00.007+01:00

I'm a big fan of Roman Polanski. From Rosemary's Baby to The Pianist I think that he has made some of the best films of all time, and is an exemplary filmmaker. There's a lot of controversy after his arrest in Zurich a few days ago, many well known and well respected people in the film industry such as David Lynch and Martin Scorsese have signed a petition for his release, and many of them have come under fire on internet message boards for supporting him. There's no getting around it, he admittedly drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, something I absolutely do not condone for one second, then fled to France to avoid jail. I don't believe that anyone is above the law, and I think that yes, he should be punished. Yet I remain a fan of him as a director, an admirer of his work, and I've enjoyed his films immensely.

For many, I think that's quite an issue. How can someone neither condone the crime, nor condemn the art? Some have said that buying a film of his on DVD is supporting him (well shoot me, I just picked up The Fearless Vampire Hunters), a lot of people boycott his films because of what he did, and some feel that you cannot support his work as a filmmaker if you admonish him for his crimes. Yet most of the time, people do separate a person from their actions in the world of film and appreciate them for their work. Despite outbursts from Russell Crowe or Christian Bale, most admit they are great actors. Robert Downey Jr. has had an extremely destructive career, but he is a remarkable actor. Admittedly though, that's not a direct comparison with what Polanski did.

I'm reminded somewhat of Jeffrey Jones. He's an actor I'm sure most people are familiar with, I had been a fan of his since I was a kid, but in 2002 he was arrested on child pornography charges and getting a 14 year old boy to pose for pictures. I was shocked, I remember watching Deadwood and initially I couldn't get the thought out of my head every time Jones was onscreen 'This man is a pedophile'. But after some time I put it out of my mind. He was still the same actor that I always enjoyed watching. The fact that Matthew Broderick killed two people in a car crash had never impeded my enjoyment of Ferris Bueller's Day Off, so why should Jeffrey Jones's crime?

I feel the same way about Roman Polanski. I'd be lying if I said I didn't love his films, or that I wasn't a big fan of him as a director. Since I've been aware of him, I've known about what he did, and still continued (and will continue) to enjoy his work ever since I first saw Rosemary's Baby all those years ago. I respect the opinions of Martin Scorsese and all those who support Polanski, and I respect the opinions of the people who boycott his films because of his crimes, but I can't respect the idea that someone who simply enjoys Polanski's films is in some way reprehensible for it. I feel that I'll always have a great admiration for him as a filmmaker.

Ichi

2009-09-20T23:47:00.004+01:00

Ichi is a new and interesting take on the Zatoichi character. In this film, Ichi is a woman (Haruka Ayase), a blind travelling musician and an expert with a sword who was trained by the original Zatoichi. As such, it's more of a sequel than a remake. We find her as she searches for her mentor, and the plot takes place in a familiar Yakuza-run small town, with many staples from the previous films included, like an obligatory visit to a gambling hall.

She meets Toma Fujihira (Takao Osawa), a man who cannot draw his sword because of a past shame and as he tells her, is currently on a pilgrimage. Soon after, Ichi kills a few members of a bandit gang who threatens them. Local yakuza believe that it was Toma who killed the bandits, and want to hire him as a bodyguard. There's also an annoying kid that hangs around with the two, and provides comic relief.

Now, I'm a fan of the Zatoichi films and I think Fumihiko Sori is an extremely talented director, so I was really looking forward to this. Sadly, it's a disappointment. It's not exactly a bad film, just one that is so dramatically uneven in tone that it doesn't reach it's full potential, so many moments of greatness that are sullied with poor characters, ridiculously cheesy acting and unfunny moments of humor. The character of Toma is rather annoying because he flips between serious and comic roles.

Ichi opens with a very bleak scene, it sets a dark and serious tone for the film. It's matched with beautiful cinematography, at times it echoed a Yoji Yamada samurai drama, and Ayase puts in an extremely good performance as the title character. But there's a complete shift in tone when the villains are onscreen; brash over the top characters that seem like they're from another film entirely and just don't fit in at all. It's almost as if The Hidden Blade collided with Azumi, and the result was a film that unexpectedly hops from serious and somber to camp and silly. Shido Nakamura plays the bandit leader Banki, a one note character devoid of any depth, notable only because of his ridiculous cackle. It's a shame because Nakamura is a far, far better actor than this, as his roles in Ping Pong and Letters From Iwo Jima show.

Sori is indeed a very capable director, his first film Ping Pong was absolutely brilliant, and the animated Vexille was a fairly decent piece of Sci-Fi action, so it's a pity that Ichi went so terribly wrong. There's a lot of the film I liked, many stand out moments, and the scenes that gave back story on the character of Ichi were especially good, but it's just too uneven and ultimately ends up as a film that is less than the sum of it's parts. With such a great concept, a talented director and good cast, it should have been so much more. Kitano's Zatôichi from 2003 will probably remain the best new take on the classic character for some time.

Solomon Kane the Trailer

2009-09-20T03:42:00.007+01:00

As many of you know I have been away for the past while. The reasons for this are known to a few but mainly it's been down to damned writers block which is something not easily over come. I believed that over time my ability to write about obscure cult cinema would return unprompted but alas this was not the case. In reality it took, 4 bottles of bourbon, a Thai hooker called Love You Long Time and a badger to restore my talent.

With my returning ability I decided to give what many of you want in your daily diet of cinema: sex and violence. While the above seems to skim on the sex it does deliver shed-loads of violence and having seen some of the film I can testify that it will be something special. Unfortunately the release date is still some time away with European distribution for Solomon Kane only recently being attained. In the mean time, enjoy the rather brilliant trailer. I'll be back sometime tomorrow with my thoughts on Antichrist which does contain copious amounts of sex. Till then...

District 9

2009-09-07T09:37:00.010+01:00

I've been eagerly anticipating District 9, and I'm extremely happy to say that it doesn't disappoint. The film by director Neill Blomkamp is a triumph, one of the most refreshing and unique experiences I've had in the cinema for a long time. Perhaps it's that on the meager budget of $30 million, with no big name stars attached, District 9 was a more exciting, more engrossing, and by far more relevant than any big budget Hollywood Science Fiction in the last 20 years.

Blomkamp's film directly references apartheid in South Africa, with the animosity towards aliens an allegory for how black South Africans were treated. That's a large part of what makes this such a unique and stirringly real science fiction tale, a sense that if aliens did come to earth, this is how humanity could react and how they would be treated, interned and exploited. The setting of Johannesburg is certainly a part of what makes District 9 such a refreshing experience, apart from the usual America-centric Sci-Fi films.

Another thing that sets it apart is protagonist Wikus van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley) because as the film starts out, he's almost unlikable. He's someone who's got his job because of who he knows, not because he was suited to the job, and he is in fact a bit incompetent. Wikus is a prat, but an extremely unique and interesting character. There's a scene near the start of the film where he's describing to the camera with a kind of giddy apathy what happens when they're aborting alien babies with a flamethrower, a callous act of policy by the MNU corporation who are facilitating the internment of the aliens.

When Wikus is exposed to an alien substance that begins to alter his DNA, he's treated by his employers in the very same cold and clinical way as his jobsworth approach to dealing with the aliens (whom he and others refer to as 'prawns'), as he now becomes the key for adapting alien technology and weaponry for human use. When he goes on the run, he's put in an undignified position of having to steal clothing and food, and we gain a lot of sympathy for a character who feels authentically real. Wikus is not a hero, he's not the clean, wise cracking Will Smith type, and that's what makes him so compelling as a protagonist, he's a bit of an asshole and he swears a lot.

And on the subject of swearing, that's another thing that I loved about District 9. I find that a lot of Science Fiction films these days are often very watered down kid-friendly affairs, rarely do you hear someone swear, and any violence is quite tame. Characters in District 9 actually talk like real people, and they curse and swear when it's appropriate, which really adds to the realism of the film. The violence is also suitably bloody. This is a mature film, with mature themes and content, and it's extremely good to see a film like this that is aimed at a mature audience, rather than the usual notion that Sci-Fi = kids film.

Another thing I found that really grounded the film for me was the idea of the aliens adopting human names, the main alien character is named Christopher Johnson. Something I've experienced myself here in Ireland was that people from other countries living here would often take western European names like John or Jim, and seeing this mirrored in District 9 was something that definitely added to the feel of realism.

Of course, the main reason the film works so well is Sharlto Copley. His performance as Wikus van de Merwe is absolutely astonishing, especially when you consider that this is someone who's never acted before. It takes an extremely good actor to play a character who is first presented as a prick, then make that character sympathetic to audiences. But as the character goes through his ordeal, I don't think I've seen someone who looks as genuinely frightened and distraught as Copley does, it's quite amazing.

The action is really terrific as well, but what director Neill Blomkamp does is perfectly immerse us in the setting and the characters before introducing any action scenes. When the pace is upped and more action is introduced, it's never really presented in a way that they make a spectacle of it. When we see the gloriously designed mech introduced, there's never any typical Hollywood style lingering shots of it that say "Phwoar! Look at the mech, look at the awesome CGI!" and the action that takes place is never over stylized. It really is, just some of the best action I've seen in a Sci-Fi film, and there's even a reference to Half Life 2 that absolutely make me laugh with glee.

I would say that District 9 is probably film of the year for me so far, and definitely one of the best Science Fiction films I've seen in a very long time. It's not exactly perfect, and there's a few too many plot conveniences for my liking, but on the whole it is just a magnificent work. Every other aspect of it works so very well, that I can easily forget any of the minor contrivances because of what an absolutely immersing and thrilling experience District 9 has been. It's just fokken brilliant.

Inglourious Basterds

2009-08-27T00:55:00.006+01:00

The film opens on a farm. A man is chopping wood. He spots someone approaching, and hurriedly tells his child to get inside the house. It could be the opening of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, but instead of Angel Eyes, it's a man they call the Jew hunter, SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). The two men then enter the house and sit down at the table where Waltz, echoing Van Cleef completely, is calmly getting the information he wants from the other visibly nervous man.

Tarantino pays tribute to Leone's masterpiece in his opening sequence. It matches the corresponding opening in the classic western perfectly in tone, in mounting tension, and drags out the suspense for maximum effect. It is quite honestly one of the best start to any film I've seen in a long time, which is such a shame that the rest of Inglourious Basterds just can't keep up the same quality.

My main problem with Basterds is that it's extremely uneven. There's a lot of time spent talking about film, half of it is practically a film about film, and film plays an integral part of the plot. Characters have conversations about German cinema, during a briefing there's talk of how important film is to the German military's propaganda, and there is a lot of name drops in dialogue. What's interesting at first, becomes tired and forced. When one of the main characters says the line "In France, we respect the directors" I couldn't help but feel this is a little ego-trip on Quentin's part. I think it would have been better if it hadn't concentrated on so much reference.

When the film is at it's best, it's all Christoph Waltz. Hans Landa, The Jew Hunter is equal parts charming and chilling, it's rare to see a villain of this stature and the film is all his. No other character in Basterds is as interesting, no other actor here is as brilliant, and no scene of the film is as good as those with Landa. Apart from one moment of awful dialogue where he says "That's a bingo" (I think it's far too cheesy having a foreign character gaffe a common saying), I'd say he is by far Tarantino's best written character.

I think the reason I like Landa so much is because he's extremely unlike other Tarantino characters, he's particularly subtle, his motives are hidden rather than overt, and he probably has some of the best dialogue out of any character in any of Tarantino's films. Brad Pitt by comparison plays a one dimensional cartoon: Lieutenant Aldo Raine is good for a few laughs, like when he's posing an Italian, but there really isn't anything interesting about him at all. The only other character in the film who seems like a fully fleshed out person is Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent), and her and Landa share one of the best scenes of the film.

As far as the direction goes, if there's one thing I'll say about Quentin, he knows how to pace a scene. He can really prolong the suspense without it dragging into boredom. Take the scene in Pulp Fiction for example, where Butch takes his time selecting his weapon before rescuing Marsellus. He never rushes things. There's an absolutely magnificent scene half way through Inglourious Basterds where the basterds are meeting a contact in a basement pub. It culminates in a spectacular (if brief) shoot-out, but it's everything leading up to the action that makes it so brilliant, the tension as the undercover soldiers risk being found out builds up so well.

Overall, it is a film that falls short of being great. While we're treated to one of the most charismatic movie villains in a long time, none of the other characters are really engaging. There's some absolutely terrific scenes, like the opening and bar shoot-out, but even though it didn't seem like the film ran for 153 minutes, there was still some scenes where the film dragged, and I felt that all the pontificating about films was fairly unnecessary. Tarantino cheekily ends the film with a very self-referential line "I think this might be my masterpiece", but it would take a lot more to topple Pulp Fiction as the masterpiece. It's a hell of a lot better than Kill Bill though.

Avatar - I'm not convinced.

2009-08-20T22:34:00.009+01:00

James Cameron's new film Avatar has been gathering some serious momentum in the hype and anticipation from fans. Supposedly Cameron conceived the idea years ago, but that the technology didn't exist to realize his vision at the time. Avatar has been heralded as being the next step in special effects, as significant a change to film as black and white to color, and it's had comment from Steven Spielberg, Steven Soderbergh, Jon Favreau and others praising the film.

Now that the teaser trailer has been released, it has to be said, I'm not convinced that this is going to be the next step in cinema. In fact, I'm not even convinced this is going to be a good film. There's a considerable and sometimes very harsh backlash against the film on many internet message boards, with a lot of people bashing the computer generated effects that were lauded to be photo realistic. I wouldn't be quite as harsh, but I do think the teaser has been disappointing, and it could take more before I am excited about Avatar.

Here's hoping the 15 minute preview is better.

I do think that some of the effects shown are incredibly good, in the moment where Sam Worthington's character awakes in his new form, the detail as he examines his hands and stretches his toes is extremely impressive, but elsewhere the CGI looks obvious and cartoonish. I'm willing to grant that what we've seen in the trailer isn't completely finished work, after all, some of the CGI that was shown in the Iron Man trailer was considerably worse than what was shown in the finished film. And I'm also willing to grant that we cannot judge a film that's pioneering 3D techniques until we've seen it for ourselves in 3D on the big screen.

The reason I'm not all that excited is because I'm afraid that Avatar will be a case of style over substance. Even if it's the greatest spectacle in cinema history, that fact won't make up for a poor story or shallow characters. I want to be excited, because this is coming from the man who made The Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss, but I'm not even intrigued by the teaser. By comparison, a film that I am extremely excited about seeing is Neill Blomkamp's District 9, I'm counting the days until it's released here in Ireland (September 4th).

I can't help but compare the two films, even if it's only on a superficial level as they're both big science fiction films featuring aliens, and the main character in each fights against their former allies with the aliens. But in contrast to Avatar, the teaser (which you can watch here) for District 9 was something that completely grabbed my attention, I was extremely intrigued and fascinated, this was a film that I desperately want to see. I was sold long before the full trailer came along. The methods of advertising the films are just so vastly different, Avatar's teaser seems to be all about the spectacle, it's saying "Phwoar! Look at the CGI! Look at the alien creatures!" whereas District 9's teaser entices and piques curiosity.

So far, Blomkamp's film is getting great reviews (that for the most part, I'm ignoring as I don't want to spoil it for myself), and it's already hit imdb.com's top 250 at #29 at the time of writing this. I've no doubt it's going to be something very special indeed. That's something that Avatar has yet to convince me of. To me District 9 seems like a vastly more thrilling film, the story looks to be more compelling, and the main character seems more engaging. I'm hoping that James Cameron's Avatar will turn out to be every bit as fantastic on a storytelling level as it is visually, and we'll be treated to something that is as revolutionary as it claims to be, but if I was to make a bet as to which film will be considered the greatest in years to come, my money would be with Blomkamp's District 9.

The most ill-advised remakes in history

2009-08-17T20:02:00.016+01:00

You really can't get away from remakes, can you? Be it a classic masterpiece that gets a trendy update or a translation of an only just released foreign film, cinema is cluttered with remakes that rarely live up to the originals. Now, instead of creating a list of the worst, I've decided to list what I think are the most ill-advised remakes, interpretations of classics that so horrendously miss the point, that cast completely wrong people, or adjust the story to the detriment of the film. Remakes that just got it so very, terribly wrong.

The Haunting - Quite easily one of the chief offenders, director Jan de Bont gives us this extremely brash, loud, flashy and special effects driven version of what was an extremely subtle, understated and excellent ghost story that hasn't yet met it's match. It makes you wonder, did de Bont and the producers watch Robert Wise's original and say "Massive CGI displays!"? It was something that should have been creepy, atmospheric and unsettling, but with the ridiculously over the top set design it's anything but. Not even Liam Neeson could save this disaster.

Diabolique - It's amazing to think they took the classic French title Les diaboliques and turned it into this dreadful Sharon Stone film that was seemingly made just to cash in on her femme fatale status after Basic Instinct. What's so ill-advised about it was that someone thought it was a good idea to have the director of National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation Jeremiah S. Chechik to helm this remake. The direction here is so inept that the murder scene actually comes across as comical. Chechik then went on to make The Avengers.

Psycho - Shocking to think that Gus Van Sant followed up the success of Good Will Hunting with this. Remaking Hitchcock is bad enough, but to cast Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates? Don't get me wrong, Vince can act and he was great in Swingers, but for the role made famous by Anthony Perkins he was just horribly miscast. It's a remake, that for all the similarities with the original, just came out as inferior rubbish.

The Wicker Man - Without a doubt the original Wicker Man with Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee was one of the greatest classics of the Horror genre. For some reason writer and director Neil LaBute thought it was a great idea to remake it as a farce where Nicolas (Argh the bees!) Cage runs around in a bear suit beating up women. This isn't just a bad remake, it's one of the very worst films of all times.

The Vanishing - Directors remaking their own films is a very special kind of mistake when it comes to American remakes of foreign titles. The original Dutch film is nothing short of utterly chilling, but director George Sluizer somehow got roped into making a truly dismal American version with Kiefer Sutherland and Sandra Bullock. That's so dreadful about it is the horrible tacked on happy ending this version treats us to, rather than the disturbing and bleak ending of the original.

The Assassin - Luc Besson's Nikita, an absolutely essential piece of film-making, one of the greatest thrillers of all time. The horrible American version The Assassin, or Point of no Return as it was also called, served only to spit in the face of the original, Bridget Fonda was terrible and simply cannot compare to Anne Parillaud in Nikita. Quite easily one of the worst and most soulless remakes out there.

Get Carter - A remake of the classic English gangster film. What makes this particularly bad is that Sylvester Stallone takes over the title character from Michael Caine, and it's turned into more of an action film. What's even worse is the fact that Caine actually takes part in the remake in a supporting role. I rather like Stallone, but he was completely wrong for Carter.

Nightwatch - Much like director George Sluizer did with The Vanishing, writer and director Ole Bornedal remade his own film in America with Ewan McGregor and Nick Nolte. The original Nightwatch was just superb, extremely suspenseful and disturbing. The American version wasn't, it was limp and lacked any of the character that made Bornedal's original what it was.

Day of the Dead - Vegetarian zombies. Zombies that can climb walls and scamper along ceilings. Nick Cannon. I'd dare say there's not a single element of this abysmal remake that's not ill-advised, it's a disaster of the highest order. You can read my review of it here.

The Ring 2 - Like with the directors of The Vanishing and Nightwatch, Hideo Nakata is another who's travelled to America to do a version of his own film. The original Ring was far superior to Gore Verbinksi's version, a far more subtle and atmospheric film, where the remake threw in nonsense with horses and over-embellished the special effects. What Nakata does with The Ring 2 is expand upon the very worst elements of the remake, the scene with the deer was laughable, and the film displays none of the subtlety of his Ring or Dark Water. It's really just atrocious.

Also see my post When Remakes Are Good.

Tim Burton really needs to do something different.

2009-07-28T01:19:00.008+01:00

I've watched the trailer for Tim Burton's upcoming Alice in Wonderland and I took from it an overwhelming feeling of the same old thing being trotted out again. Johnny Depp in elaborate makeup in another kooky performance, a lot of vaguely Gothic imagery, and Helena Bonham Carter thrown in for good measure. Here we go again.

I used to love the films of Tim Burton, back when I was a wee nipper I had Batman, Beetle Juice, and Edward Scissorhands on VHS and watched them all so very many times. When I was older, I discovered the exceptional Ed Wood on TV one night, and that's remained one of my favorite films of all time ever since. But these days I find that the nicest thing I have to say about Burton in conversation is that he's very hit and miss. Where did he go wrong?

His Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was extremely disappointing, it was a poor film that lacked all of the charm and all of the heart that the 1971 film, and Depp's portrayal of Willy Wonka had none of the character that Gene Wilder's had. For all Burton's dark overtones and style, it's mostly on the surface, because his version was far less frightening, the infamous boat journey with Wilder singing "Yes the danger must be growing..." still sticks with me.

For me, I'd say Tim Burton's last great film was Big Fish, and it highlights such how phenomenal a director he can be when he steps outside his comfort zone. Ewan McGregor as the lead, instead of the usual Johnny Depp, also works greatly to the benefit of the film, distancing it from his usual fare. There's some so completely moving and heartwarming about the mythic stories, and the strained relationship between father and son is as powerful and as touching as any other drama I could care to mention.

Since then he's made the aforementioned Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride, and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Corpse Bride I found particularly dull and tired, but I have to admit that I did quite enjoy Sweeney Todd, because it's a significantly darker film than most of Burton's work, but it's still a case of him singing the same old song, the style all too reminiscent of his previous work, a Tim Burton film by numbers. Without the blood and song, it just doesn't stand out.

While the frequent collaboration with Johnny Depp is part of the reason I find his films getting so tiresome, it was their second outing together Ed Wood that was the strongest for both of them. Again, it steps out of Burton's comfort zone, ditches the faux-gothic veneer, and come out as easily his strongest picture, an emotionally rich biography of Edward D Wood Jr. that has more feeling than any other I could mention. Depp's portrayal of the cult B-movie director is one of tragic optimism, and I'd say a performance he has never yet matched, and it's a film that in nearly 15 years Tim Burton hasn't been able to match.

No doubt Alice in Wonderland will be a success, but I'm not holding out any optimism for it personally, I can't help looking at the trailer and pictures from the film without feeling disappointed in advance, or thinking that it's yet another book after the awful Chocolate Factory affair that's been homogenized into the usual Burton/Depp Gothic claptrap. Tim really needs to do something different, challenge himself, because he is a capable and talented director, but seems complacent in his mediocre output as of late.

I'm not saying different will automatically be better, because after all, his Planet of the Apes was something that ventured away from his usual and that was terrible, although that was a remake, which never bodes well. And I'm not really saying that the same old thing is necessarily bad, as I thoroughly enjoyed Sleepy Hollow for all it's usual Burton-esque qualities. But right now, I find myself losing respect for an artist that doesn't stretch himself, like a painter painting the same picture over and over, and for someone who was one of my favorite directors at one stage, I do believe Tim Burton quite desperately needs to do something different.

Martyrs

2009-07-13T03:03:00.009+01:00

Martyrs is a film that I have watched twice in the space of a few days. It's a film that has been occupying my thoughts heavily, and I can't seem to shake it. I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it, but I do know for sure that this is an absolutely staggering piece of cinema, and I'm shocked that I nearly allowed it to pass me by. This wasn't a film I expected to like.

I find that generally various trends and sub genres tend to go stale fairly quick. Asian horror films had been increasingly mundane and formulaic even before the American remakes. Modern gore movies seem to have lost their bang for me as well, and I've been far more interested in the likes of Let The Right One In and [Rec] than any extreme violence. But on the recommendation of a friend, I picked up Martyrs, expecting at the most an above-average gore fest.

What I saw, was something that completely exceeded my expectations in almost every way. It was an absolutely chilling watch, every bit a terrifying psychological trip as much as a brutal and sadistic show of violence. I knew it was going to be hard to watch, but it caught me completely unprepared, disturbing not merely because of the level of violence, but deeply and extremely unnerving on a whole other level. The psychological and the visceral styles are often at odds with each other in horror, and it does seem as if Martyrs has taken elements from different films and put them together in a way that's quite jarring and doesn't come together until the end. The first half reminded me slightly of A Tale Of Two Sisters in places, shifting in tone to a more brutal revenge style film, before descending into one of the most bleak and upsetting pieces of cinema I have ever seen.

Director and writer Pascal Laugier has crafted one of the most effecting horror films you could ever care to watch. The two leads, Lucie (Mylène Jampanoï) and Anna (Morjana Alaoui) are extremely well written characters, played magnificently well by the respective actresses, and are the real triumph of the film. I've said before that for a horror to truly engage the audience, it needs first and foremost characters that engage us, that we feel for and connect to, and Martyrs accomplishes this. Lucie especially is a tragic character, haunted, driven, confused and tormented with survivor's guilt, and the relationship between her and Anna seems so very real. Unlike a number of other horror films I've seen lately, these are characters I feel for and care about. Anna's selflessness and good nature made me feel all the more hurt by the end.

Martyrs is a deeply upsetting and uncomfortable film. It's a thoroughly fantastic one, in that it accomplishes what it sets out to do, and emotionally assaults the audience, it was utterly terrifying, bleak, chilling, disturbing, tragic, made me feel extremely angry and extremely sad. It's stuck with me days after watching it, much like Let The Right One In, Audition, or Satoshi Kon's Perfect Blue. Good or bad, this film makes an impact.

Just How Creepy is Edward Cullen, Let Buffy Show You

2009-06-27T01:09:00.005+01:00

Like many of you I was quite disturbed by the message Twilight sent out to teenage girls about what true love is. According to both the novels and film true love can involve a guy watching a girl he likes while she sleeps, following her around the place and making his "O" face every time she enters the room. In real life this would be identified as stalking and would generally involve the stalkee reporting her stalker to the police so that he could spend a few years behind bars.

In the world of Twilight this is what true love is. The above video is a truly fantastic feat when you consider that how much time and effort was put into making it. The flawless editing and matching of shots is something which very few YouTube videos can even come close to matching.

Akira remake has exploded.

2009-06-16T12:23:00.005+01:00

According to Bloody Disgusting, the proposed remake of the classic Anime feature Akira is now dead. Personally, I feel this is both good, and bad news. The fact of the matter is that remakes rarely work, and the potential for turning one of the most influential and iconic films in Anime history into something like this is always there. As well as that, the budget that a project like this would need to be staggering in order for the film to be fully realized as live action.

On the other hand, if done right, the proposed 2-part Akira remake could have been something very spectacular indeed. I've been waiting for quite a long time to see Irish director Ruairi Robinson who was nominated for an Oscar for his short film Fifty Percent Grey, direct a feature length film. So now that he's walked away from the project, who knows when that could be?

Screaming girls and sparkling vampires.

2009-06-10T07:49:00.012+01:00

It seems all around there's a shitstorm of screaming girls, parody videos, humorous comics, and blog rants, all aimed squarely at the pop phenomenon with sparkly vampires, even South Park has a few digs. It's something I've just tried to ignore, Twilight was never a film that I'd be interested in, The Twilight Samurai is more my kind of movie, but more and more it just seemed like I was missing out on something big. Maybe it was morbid curiosity, that I had to know was this really as bad as everyone said it was? Or did I just want to get in on the joke? Whatever reason, I needed to have an opinion on the film itself, I need to go find the body and see it with my own eyes even if I new in advance how horrible it was going to be.

To my surprise, it's not the worst film I've ever seen. Now it is indeed horrible, and sure it is camp, the acting is stilted and awkward, the plot is shallow, the characters flat and poorly developed, the dialogue is thoroughly horrendous, and the special effects are hilariously bad, but despite all that (or perhaps because of it) I did kind of enjoy the film to a degree. Amid the stiff romance of the wooden and chemistry-free leads, there's a great deal of some extremely silly and unintentionally funny scenes. Vampire baseball anyone? I'd ask anyone to watch Twilight and not laugh at that, how a scene as contrived and ridiculous as that could make it into the film without irony.

The chuckles start fairly early. There's a scene where the nauseatingly aloof lead Bella first meets the heart-throb vampire boy Edward, and it comes across like the scene in Wayne's World where Garth falls in love with the dream woman. A friend likened it to something from a cheap porno. The setup of the scene felt like a parody, it's astonishingly contrived and looks hilarious. There's a similarly cheap and tacky scene where Edward's playing piano which would seem completely at home in an advert for chocolates. Then there's the sparkles. I don't know what kind of brain fart writer Stephenie Meyer had when she thought that undead blood drinkers should sparkle, it makes about as much sense as zombies laying chocolate eggs. "This is the skin of a killer!" Edward exclaims. No, that's the skin of Tinkerbell. Which begs the question, does a vampire's reflection look like an adorable little kitten in Twilight's world?

Robert Pattinson gives one of the worst performances I've seen in a long time. Putting away his delivery of the dialogue, his entire act is based around one look, all he ever seems to do is pout and look up from under his heavy brow. It's a performance worthy of Derek Zoolander, I couldn't watch a single scene with Pattinson without thinking Blue Steel, it's uncanny.

It's an absolutely terrible movie, but I can't say I didn't enjoy it just for how bad it was, it could almost fall under the "So bad it's good" category. If we stop to think of the unintentional subtext in the story, it becomes even more ridiculous. Strip away the vampiric trimmings, and the story is about a girl being submissive to a stalker who follows her and watches her sleep. I'm in awe of how such a terrible story has garnered such a following, something so shallow and poorly made that has become so successful I can only liken to a company finding a way to market bottles of air. It's not as if either of the leads can act, nor is there much in the way of plot, but seeing all the merchandising surrounding Twilight it seems the appeal could be more like a brand that's encapsulated the young fans more so than anything else?

I really can't wait for the inevitable Stiller parody though.

I'm not coming down until they stop screaming!

"I'll Be Back" theTerminator Monster Ballad

2009-05-26T21:05:00.004+01:00

With the rather mixed reviews popping up all over the place many of us life long Terminator fans are preparing for the worst. So diverse are the reviews that one can't help but wonder if perhaps half the worlds critics were paid to write positive things about the film but this is obviously not the case as Harry "I love anything as long as I get a muffin basket from the producers" Knowles took the film apart in what is easily one of the worst reviews to ever grace the Internet. Long known for his biased and unfair reviews Knowles seems to have gone out of his way to trash the film though there's a good chance that once he gets a free copy of the Blu Ray of a key chain then his opinion will change and Salvation will be up there with T2 in his opinion.

I'm keeping an open mind and reserving all judgement for Salvation as the tralers have interested me immensly and I don't despise McG as many do. I think he has shown himself to be a talented director with his post Charlie's out put and say what you want about the Charlie's films they certainly looked good.

If Salvation is half as much fun as this monster ballad based on the franchise well then I do believe it could be a winner.

Let The Right One In

2009-05-11T13:56:00.009+01:00

This is one that I had been waiting for a long time. In fact, it's been just over a year since I first talked about it on this blog, but it finally got a cinema release in the UK & Ireland, and it's something I am extremely glad I waited to see on the big screen. Without trying to sound overboard, I sincerely think that Let The Right One In is one of the best films I have ever seen, it left me breathless.

I don't know of any other film I've seen lately that has been as utterly affecting, as powerful, beautiful, haunting and as disturbing as this one. I'll often judge a horror film by how it measures up to the greats of the genre, and in this I have found one that does not merely measure up, it actually surpasses them. It captures a sense of social and emotional isolation even greater than that of Polanski's The Tenant, a sense of permeating darkness greater than that of The Shining or The Exorcist, and it comes off as more personally effecting than any of them.

I believe the best way for a horror film to succeed is to have characters that engage us, that we can relate to, and feel for. Not many horrors manage this, but the few that do are the ones that hit us the hardest; The Exorcist works so well because of how endearing young Regan is and how we're frightened for her. The protagonist of Let The Right One In is 12 year old Oskar (played fantastically by Kåre Hedebrant), he's seemingly alone in the world, picked on and tormented by other children in school, and his parents are separated. There's one scene in the film where Oskar is happy with his father, but when someone calls around, out comes the booze and Oskar is seemingly brushed aside by his father in favour of the bottle and his new company. This is a character I genuinely felt for, and for a horror movie, that's something extremely rare.

Oskar soon meets Eli (Lina Leandersson), who is from all outward appearances a 12 year old girl. She's moved in next door to Oskar along with a man that other characters presume to be her father. Coyly the two become friends, and Eli encourages the very timid Oskar to fight back against the bullies, where he had previously bottling up his anger into murderous fantasies. It becomes more clear to him that Eli is different, she's a vampire, but that doesn't seem to phase him and they grow a close bond.

The character of Eli is another triumph of the film, she's one of the most intriguing, yet absolutely chilling vampires ever portrayed onscreen. She doesn't say much, and her motivations don't seem all that clear. As the film goes on, I felt happy that Oskar found a friend, but for all the outward innocence of his and Eli's relationship, there seems to be something very cold and calculated about it and by the end of the film I wasn't sure if Oskar was redeemed, manipulated, or just another victim. The ending is left very open to interpretation, and that's what I found so haunting and chilling about the film. It's magnificently subtle.

I won't say that the film is perfect, there's one scene that I felt worked against it, you'll know the one I mean if you've seen it. But in all other aspects, this is an absolute masterpiece. Director Tomas Alfredson has made a film that looks nothing short of beautiful yet bleak and haunting, scenes are framed with a true artistry, and it keeps a steady pace throughout. It can be taken as a story of love and friendship, or something far more sinister. But overall, this is a film that is without peers, it is one of the most significant horror films in a very long time. The acting is superb, and rarely will you find young actors as good as the 2 leads here. Special mention has to go to the score by Johan Söderqvist, it sets the tone amazingly, it's as subtle yet powerful and as affecting as the film itself.

There's really very few films that have left me as staggered as this one, that have instantly solidified themselves as favorites like this has. I'd recommend it without reserve, whether you're a fan of horror or not. Let The Right One In, along with the likes of Ring and Don't Look Now, is what I'll be judging further Horror films against. It's raised the bar.

Remembering my father through film.

2009-04-29T09:49:00.007+01:00

I never thought that I'd be posting something this personal here. I was debating if I should write this or not, and it's been very hard for me trying to put my feelings into words. Early this month, my father passed away. He was only 68. I drank myself stupid when I heard, and then a couple of days later I was carrying his casket, then drank myself stupid again afterwards. My left hand was shaking uncontrollably as they lowered him into to the grave, and I was struggling to hold in the tears. My father had died, and I was extremely upset for a while afterwards, but I think things really hit me hard a few days ago.

My family and I were collecting up his papers, his books, and other things. My mother asked if either I or my sister wanted anything anything of his to keep, something personal to remind me down the years. What I wanted more than anything else, was the old Indiana Jones DVD box set that I got him as a present many years ago. Mum asked was I sure there wasn't anything else I wanted, and I said no, this was what I wanted. This was something personal, that meant a lot to me, because we both loved Indiana Jones and we had watched the films so very many times together when I was growing up. It was a greater memento of my father than anything else I could have taken.

It was after watching Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade back to back that the loss of my father really hit. We weren't all that close, and in the last few years, we didn't really see much of each other except at Christmas and other rare occasions. Just before Christmas 2008 was that last time I saw him, though I spoke to him on the phone not long after that. We didn't share many interests, he was a big football fan, and I wasn't. A couple of times, we'd be talking on the phone and he'd go quiet all of a sudden and not reply, only to let out a cheer abruptly as his team scored. That frustrated me, and I'd give out to him for ignoring me over the football. It was funny looking back on it. But films were one thing we shared an interest in, and that's when it really hit home, because when we were at our closest, it was watching films together. All my best memories of my father were enjoying James Bond movies, or Star Wars, and films with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, and Clint Eastwood.

So many memories of my father had come flooding back to me, of all the good times we had together. I had always remembered the bad times we had, and there were many, but the good times seemed to have slipped away until recently. He took me to see Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, and although it was a disappointment, I can remember how happy and excited I was to go and see it with him, although that was probably the last one we saw together. There were a lot of films he took me to see, such as Jurassic Park and Star Trek: First Contact, or The Saint. I think 1999 was probably the last year we'd gone to the cinema together, it was a good year because as well as Star Wars, we saw The Matrix, The Mummy and The Haunting. That was also the year I started to go off to the cinema on my own, with my own friends, and without my father.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was a film we both loved, and it will always carry a special memory for me. You see, my father was from Nottingham, and the legend of Robin Hood was one that I loved, it was his story, his legend. We visited Nottingham castle when I was very young. I know Prince of Thieves was not the definitive telling of the tale, but it's a film that's completely embedded in my memories of my father. I guess it's why I'll always have time for Kevin Costner as an actor, and Waterworld was another film that my father took me to see in the cinema.

As strict as he was most of the time, he never objected to me watching violent movies, and I guess I'll always thank him for that. I was about 11 or 12, and we watched Aliens together. It scared the life out of me, but he was there, minding me throughout it all. He took me to the video store every so often, and he'd always let me pick out the films to rent. I don't think he ever really rented anything himself, but I think we always had the same tastes, and we'd always watch them together.. We both liked a lot of sci-fi films and TV shows, we loved to sit and watch Star Trek: The Next Generation together, The X Files, and I still remember us watching Space: Above and Beyond.

I always knew what it was like to lose someone you were close to, since my granddad died when I was very young, there was deaths of uncles and my grandmother throughout my life, but this was different. Despite how separate we were in the later years, this felt the closest. In the end, I loved him. I guess I don't have any regrets, but having all those fond memories come floating back to me, I started thinking about all the things we'd never share again. How I'd seen films lately that he would have loved, like Taken. One of the last conversations was about some DVDs I had bought him for Christmas. I got him the Denzel Washington version of The Manchurian Candidate. He liked it.

Transformers TV Spot

2009-04-21T18:48:00.005+01:00

Wow, just wow. I really don't know what else you can say about that. Rise of the Fallen is really shaping up to be something special and with the addition of Mike Patton as Mixmaster my anticipation has reached previously unknown levels.

This summer is really shaping up to be quite something for us children of the 80s, what with both Transformers and G.I. Joe hitting our screens within weeks of one another. Well I say it could be special but early word concerning Joe is that may of us will sit quietly in darkened theatres as our childhoods are raped before our very eyes. If anyone can explain how Cobra manages to control shrubbery and utilise it bring down the bloody Eiffel Tower I would glady appreciate them letting me know as I've given up trying to make sense of it.

Wolverine and the Green Screen

2009-04-02T22:39:00.005+01:00

The Internet – can’t live with it, can’t live without it. And the web being the never- ending game of Chinese Whispers it is, I’m sure you’ve all heard of the Wolverine Origins leak over the last few days. In short, somewhere along the post-production line someone procured an incomplete copy of the film and uploaded it in the usual questionable spots. ‘Fans’ instantly jumped upon it, despite the fact that it didn’t contain important things such as visual effects (which are a moderately important element of your average summer blockbuster).

I for one feel this leak –and Wolverine is surely not the last major pre-release leak of a major blockbuster – is significant for a number of reasons. Firstly – and I don’t really want to get into a whole anti-piracy debate here, as in the past I have found such conversations to lead to migraine inducing bouts of illogical nonsense, especially online – it really is a significant illustration of the increasing prominence of movie piracy. I’ll be honest: I am strongly against piracy – as someone who hopes to work in the industry someday, it is a trend that often annoys me. As a big fan of foreign and independent cinema, it does infuriate me when I read reviews of the latest releases on forums from people who have clearly downloaded them – these are the films I feel should be supported. I read loads of ‘early’ reviews of Let The Right One In before I finally got to see it on the big screen at the Dublin Film Festival a few weeks ago (superb, by the way) – the film is still a few weeks away from general release here in Ireland, yet many had seen it as early as last year. And while the point that ‘Hollywood has enough money’ is more difficult to argue against, I still like to support cinema in general, and for that reason never pirate. I’m not taking any moral high ground here (apologies if it came across that way), but that is just my position on the issue. So moving on…

Perhaps more importantly for me, is the supposed quality of this pre-release. Reports I’ve read suggest that while the copy is crystal clear and of DVD quality (a fact that has raised many questions about who actually leaked it), it is still a rough cut of the movie, with green screens still present, effects yet to be inserted, wires still visible etc… In short, many questions have been raised about how far along this version actually is – perhaps an early rough cut minus recent reshoots, or a close to finished version of the final product minus some post-production? Interesting questions for sure, but there is a more important one – why the fuck would anyone want to watch it?
As I hear of more and more people having watched this – both online and in that crazy thing called real-life – I just can’t understand it. Now, I admit I’m not particularly enthusiastic about the film –the sour (and mediocre) taste of X-Men: The Last Stand still lingers (damn Brett Ratner), but I’m willing to give it a chance and it should at least serve as some light entertainment. But even if I was enthusiastically following it, there is no way I would consider watching the current cut. Films such as X-Men (or any other blockbuster) are designed to be viewed in a theater – just block out everything for two hours of mindless superhero action. Watching an incomplete version on a laptop or a TV just seems crazy to me. Perhaps as a useless extra on a DVD (which I likely wouldn't watch anyway) but clearly not the optimum way to watch any film for the first time (except for maybe the fabled pre-Jar Jar cut of Episode One).

This brings me to what is perhaps my main reason for writing this piece. I am, and always will be, a massive fan of the cinema experience. I love watching a great film on a good screen – in fact, I can’t think of anything quite like it. Seeing a film with no distractions (assuming of course you don’t get stuck with any of the weak bladdered, ‘what just happened?” brigade behind you) is the only way to truly digest a film. Recently, having the pleasure to digest the likes of Synecdoche, New York or Let the Right One In on the big screen have been wonderful experiences. Wherever possible, I will watch films I want to see in cinemas rather than at home.

That is not to say I don’t see the benefits of DVD and ever improving home theatre setups. Indeed, if without DVD I’d probably never have seen a huge majority of my favourite films at all (and given the continued absence of a decent classics cinema in Dublin, I doubt I’m going to have the opportunity to see Persona, Akira, 2001 or countless others on the big screen anytime soon). But there is always something about watching a film at home that seems ‘off’ to me. You can build up a fine surround sound, Blu-Ray equipped set up for sure. But even then, there are distractions (I for one am constantly irked by time and chapter displays on DVD players), costs (especially for high-def shit) and limitations (as the only night owl in an otherwise early-rising house, midnight viewings with the volume turned up are downright impossible).

So what is the point of all this ranting and raving? I don’t know – maybe I’m just disappointed (if that is even the right word) at the popularity of this Wolverine leak. Admittedly, ‘pirates’ (yarr!) are a particularly vocal community online, with many always ready to tell anyone who cares (i.e. no-one) about their perfect copy of whatever. It just goes to show people are increasingly willing to skip the cinema in favour of a lower quality download. I just hope that it is a trend that doesn’t continue, as I will forever support the cinema over the increasingly numerous alternatives. Films such as The Purple Rose of Cairo are good looks at the kind of joy and excitement a good cinema trip can conjure up. While I don’t think theatres are at risk just yet (with films like The Dark Knight or Slumdog Millionaire attracting deserved sell-out crowds), it is an experience that should still be appreciated – and I certainly don’t think a leaked copy of X-Men Origins is the way to go about it.

Michael Bay to remake The Tenant.

2009-04-01T04:21:00.005+01:00

Michael Bay and Platinum Dunes is planning to produce a remake of Roman Polanski's classic The Tenant, with actor DJ Qualls (above) in the lead role. At the helm of the project is Dave Meyers who directed 2007's The Hitcher as well as popular music videos for the likes of Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez. Writing the script is Scott Kosar who previously wrote the scripts for the Michael Bay produced remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Amityville Horror.

Talking about the project, Kosar said "We've been working on a number of films now that Michael and I have felt needed to be updated for today's audiences for some time, and The Tenant is one of them. Our story is about a young man named Andrew Tucker who rents an apartment and finds out that the previous tenant tried to kill herself. He begins to suspect that there is more to her suicide attempt, and that the other tenants of the building are part of a cult that worship an ancient Egyptian god who planned to sacrifice the girl, but she attempted suicide to get out of their clutches. But now they have their eyes on Tucker for their next sacrifice."

Producer Michael Bay has stated "With today's technology we can do a lot of things that the 70's film had only hinted at, so I think fans will be thrilled with our version. I've seen some of the storyboarding for the final set piece, and it looks like it's shaping up to be something explosive, the kind of thing that will knock people out of their seats and have them talking for years to come."

Other actors who've been cast are Jennifer Connelly and Rufus Sewell. No release date has been announced yet.

Roman Polanski in The Tenant, 1976.

The Midnight Meat Train

2009-03-30T00:42:00.007+01:00

Here's a film I've been greatly (but cautiously) anticipating for some time now. I have been a fan of Clive Barker's since I first saw Hellraiser so many years ago, and the exceptional Ryûhei Kitamura has been on my radar since he directed Versus. But it seemed that The Midnight Meat Train had been a somewhat troubled film, with a constantly shifting release date and subsequently being buried by the studio. That's never a good sign.

The story follows a photographer named Leon (Bradley Cooper) who in a bid to try and capture the darker aspects of city life, stumbles across a man named Mahogany (Vinnie Jones) who is murdering people on a subway train. Leon follows the serial killer, piecing together the many disappearances over the years, and wondering why nobody has found any bodies, he becomes obsessed and starts to lose himself.

It's always worrying when a Japanese director makes a film in America. The likes of Hideo Nakata and Takeshi Shimizu had made some astounding films in Japan, but their output in Hollywood has been nothing but dire. I was concerned that this might also be the case with Kitamura, but more so how his visual style might gel with the kind of story that Midnight Meat Train is, as he does seem more at home in the action genre than horror. Thankfully, the film is anything but dire, and Kitamura's style works extremely well here.

I loved this film. It's something that's quite fresh and different to the current horror crop, a breath of fresh air in an environment filled with the odious smog of the seemingly never ending Saw franchise and the ilk. That's not to say it's without fault, in fact it is pretty damned faulty. One of the first things that strikes you is the over the top CGI blood and gore effects, something that regularly serves to irritate a lot of horror purists. I would say that the exaggerated kill scenes have a camp edge to them as a result, Ted Raimi's death for example made me roar with laughter. I do feel that the effects are something that requires a healthy bit of suspension of disbelief.

The greatest faltering of Midnight Meat Train would seem to be the ending and the script. I've read that the studio wanted to change the ending and remove certain supernatural story elements, and how Barker and Kitamura fought to retain it. While there's nothing wrong with the ending itself, how it's approached comes across as disjointed, maybe it's due to the studio pulling one way and filmmakers another, but the end doesn't feel fully integrated with the story. The film follows a steady pace that feels like it's building towards something, yet it seems to take a tumble when we get there. That said, I think how the story plays out actually works in spite of itself, in that it could have benefited from a better script, but had Lion's Gate got their way with the film, it would have simply been just another overage slasher flick. Midnight Meat Train, in it's own flawed way, is something much better than that.

With regards to the acting, Bradley Cooper makes quite a compelling protagonist, and Vinnie Jones is nothing short of terrific in his role. I know quite a few people don't like Jones as an actor, and most of the time he's just playing himself, but I was really impressed by him here, he has quite a presence and despite his character barely speaking a word for almost the entire film, he really carries it off with his expressions and movement. The only one I wasn't impressed with was Roger Bart, which is a pity because I really liked his performance in Hostel Part II.

Overall Midnight Meat Train is a film that is quite unique, and while definitely very flawed, I really enjoyed it for what it was. While not a masterpiece, the direction, cinematography and music all add to a very tense and atmospheric film, and one of the most exciting horrors I've seen in a while. It's not the best adaptation of Barker's work, I'd compare it more to Candyman than Hellraiser, but if you can forgive the flaws and uneven story, I think it's certainly a good film.

Repo! The Genetic Opera

2009-03-20T12:11:00.010Z

What a gleefully fantastic, ultra-camp and stylish musical this is. I'm not sure when the last time that I've seen a film as downright fun as Repo! The Genetic Opera was, it's an all singing pile of giddy joy from start to finish that had me immediately re-watching a few numbers right after it finished. It's a magnificent production, the set design, costumes and the fantastically cheesy and rocking songs are just infectious.

The story takes place in 'the not too distant future', in the aftermath of an epidemic of organ failure. In a culture rife with surgical addiction, people can finance new organs, but there's a deadly catch, missing a payment means the company sends out the repo man to take claim back your organs. Anthony Head plays one such repo man, a secret he keeps from his sick daughter Shilo (Alexa Vega) who gets tangled up in a larger plot concerning the company her father works for. It's a very grand and entwining story, filled with a lot of weird and wonderful characters.

Anthony is terrific here, he has an absolutely astonishing voice, and really puts it to great use, he's got incredible range and power. It's a fantastic performance, and I'd love to hear him sing more in future. The rest of the cast is terrific as well, especially Sarah Brightman and Terrance Zdunich (who also wrote the screenplay), but what comes as quite a surprise is that Paris Hilton shows off considerable talent, something I didn't except at all. Some people thought Bill Moseley was a rather poor singer, but I personally found him to do well in his role.

Director Darren Lynn Bousman (best known for Saw II - IV) really does a fantastic job here, in fact, everything I didn't like about his style on the Saw films he seems to have left aside here. There's still a fair bit of blood and gore in Repo! but it's played for laughs, and it's presented in a much more camp context, so those who didn't like the heavy handed content in the Saw sequels shouldn't be put off. It's the kind of silly, slapstick gore that you might expect from Sam Raimi or Peter Jackson in their prime, one moment has the repo man disemboweling his victim, reaching up into his chest cavity and using him as a puppet. It's a great scene that had me laughing uncontrollably, and the way Anthony Head played it was what really made it, expressing a moment of grim realisation after he's been enjoying his work a little too much.

Repo! is a film that seems to have people divided, I've seen a lot of mixed reviews, but it already has a lot of fans. It's either a love it or hate it, you're going to love the whole NIN by way of Tim Burton style, the whole cheesy Rock Opera saga and the gleeful gore, or it's just going to grate on you. For me, I can't help but love it, I find myself listening to songs over and over while writing this review, I just thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe not a must see, but this was just one hell of a fun film.

Blood: The Last Vampire (Trailer)

2009-03-18T06:35:00.006Z

Blood: The Last Vampire is adapted from the Anime feature of the same name. The original was quite a fantastic little film, but this looks like garbage. Enjoyable garbage though, so I can't help but want to see it.

Isolation

2009-03-18T02:41:00.006Z

Recently I was involved in a rather illuminating discussion regarding the mixing of horror and comedy. The other individual repeatedly stated that the second a horror film indulges in comedy the entire film loses all merit. Granted he argued there are exceptions to the rule, Shaun of the Dead being the most noticeable but beyond that all horror comedies in his humble opinion were dreadful. While I accepted his views I couldn't agree with him in the slightest, while many horror comedies get bogged down in trying to tie the two genres together there are many horror films which feature a comedic element to them and succeed amazing well. Black Sheep and the Return of the living Dead series both pull it off quite well.

Upon first looks Isolation bears all the appearances of being quite a good horror with comedic elements. The basic premise sets it up perfectly, killer cows on a rural Irish farm. Unlike the superb Black Sheep isolation dispenses with any notion of comedy and plays it straight and works all the better for it.

Young lovers on the run take refuge at a lonely farm where the cash strapped Farmer Dan has allowed genetic experimentation upon his live stock in a bid to boost his income. As this is a horror film things don't exactly go to plan an soon a mutant calf is on the rampage. From here things get grisly.

Isolation is one of the hardest films that I have ever had the pleasure of watching. Some of the images are startling in their brutality. One of the opening scenes shows the forced birth of calf which had me squirming in my seat. From here the real gore begins, various cows are killed in lurid detail. Scene after scene of a gas powered bolt smashing into the craniums of the cows and a few humans. Blood and brain matter spews, coating the walls and characters in crimson.
The direction is something which I had a major problem with. For some reason Billy O’ Brien insists on filming the vast majority of scenes from behind fences and gates giving the film a voyeuristic feeling which sadly doesn't work. Rather than draw the viewer in this artistic tic repeatedly took me out of the action. This is a real shame as the cinematography is superb.

The film falls down in two important areas. Much of the dialogue is in serious need of a polish with large portions of the film having the cast simple pointing out what just happened moments before. Dialogue isn't the films only problem, entire portions of the film are lifted directly from the Alien franchise with one scene being a near shot for shot copy coming out of the dog in Alien 3.

And now we get to the films biggest flaw, the creature looks absolutely woeful and gives proceedings a near comical overtone once we see it. Wisely shown in quick glimpses for the vast duration of the run time O’ Brien unwisely allows the creature far too much screen time in the last 20 minutes. Losing all menace once seen, the comical in appearance creature resembles a bag of bones crudely stuck together by a child 5 minutes before show and tell.

Overall Isolation is a surprisingly entertaining horror with a truly fantastic first hour followed by a ho hum final 20. Had the creature been in any way decent looking Isolation would have been something special. As it stands the film is an entertaining watch which ends up being quite comical even as it takes its self far too seriously.