Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
All reviews - Movies (1598) - TV Shows (38) - DVDs (2)

Underrated Fincher

Posted : 11 years, 5 months ago on 9 July 2013 11:31 (A review of The Game)

"The game is tailored specifically to each participant. Think of it as a great vacation, except you don't go to it, it comes to you."

If Alfred Hitchcock were still alive and working in the 1990s, he would most certainly have directed 1997's The Game. Dense in atmosphere and thrills, it was only the third directorial effort of David Fincher, who had exhibited his 'A' game two years prior with 1995's Se7en. Looking at Fincher's work over the years, The Game is a strong demonstration of the filmmaker's artistic trademarks, as it's an outstandingly tense thriller that combines thematic relevance with sumptuous visuals. Although the script is not airtight, this is one hell of a movie, and it toys with viewer expectations just as the players in the film toy with the protagonist. Nothing here is what it seems, and the constant unpredictable surprises keep you gripped until the very end. And it's an even better experience if you're completely in the dark about the movie for your first viewing.


A San Francisco multimillionaire businessman, Nicholas Van Orton (Michael Douglas) spent his life climbing to the top of the corporate business ladder, in the process becoming emotionally stunted and shutting out everyone he holds dear. On the day of his 48th birthday, the age when his father committed suicide, Nicholas agrees to have lunch with his brother Conrad (Sean Penn). As a birthday present, Conrad invites Nicholas to a company called Consumer Recreation Services (CRS). Begrudgingly, he agrees to the unexplained "game" offered by CRS, going through extensive physical and psychological assessments. Nicholas is thrust into the mysterious game, receiving keys and being directed to perform various tasks. But CRS begins to intrude into his daily life to an unsettling degree, controlling everything, monitoring him all the time, and even damaging his property, implying that something nefarious may be going on. As his descent down the rabbit hole becomes increasingly dangerous, the line between reality and fantasy is blurred.

Written by Michael Ferris and John D. Brancato, The Game is notable because of its ambiguity. It gives us the chance to experience the game alongside Nicholas; like him, we struggle to figure out what's going on, and, just when we think we've cracked it, something happens to make us doubt our conclusions. Furthermore, the movie is somewhat of a morality tale, as Nicholas undergoes an epiphany by the film's end. It's the type of old-fashioned tale that shows a man might have significant wealth, but he realises that such a fortune means nothing compared to what's genuinely important in life. However, the screenplay is marred by fundamental flaws in plausibility that are difficult to swallow. Without spoiling too much, we are supposed to believe that many of Nicholas' actions were pre-determined based on assessments of his physical and mental state. Too many specifics are nailed by CRS, including exactly where he might aim a gun and the exact point where he might leap off a building to his death. The Game is a pretty intelligent thriller, but a better-constructed house of cards might have achieved perfection.


Despite the script issues, Fincher's treatment of the material is top-flight. Although the pacing is a tad slow from time to time, The Game is otherwise a masterpiece from a technical perspective, relentlessly intense and claustrophobic. As Nicholas scrambles to make sense of all the strange happenings, it's hard not to find yourself riveted as you wait to see what CRS has in store for him next and wonder whether or not every event or character is purely happenstance or elaborately planned. Also noteworthy are the photography and mise-en-scène; The Game is a visual stunner packed with gorgeously composed shots and a number of perfectly orchestrated set pieces. The use of tonal colours and careful lighting give the film great depth and atmosphere. Hence, while the mystery and intrigue keep you engaged when you watch it for the first time, the careful craftsmanship and nuances will grasp your attention on repeat viewings.

Perhaps The Game's biggest asset (and that's a tough call) is Douglas, submitting one of the best performances in his career. Douglas credibly sells Nicholas as a stubborn, arrogant man, and as his life is turned upside down, his psychological unravelling is truly a marvel to see. Douglas handles the character's arc flawlessly, gradually transforming the character as he works his way through the narrative. It helps that Douglas is such a charismatic presence to boot. We need to care about Nicholas for the film to engage us, and Douglas nails it. In the supporting role of Conrad, Penn (in one of his earlier roles) is flawless, selling the material with vigour. Also of note is Deborah Kara Unger, who does a commendable job playing Christine, a woman whose loyalties and motivations are shady.


The Game is underrated Fincher, a sharp thriller with a sound conceptual framework and an element of welcome psychological complexity. There are obvious flaws in the story's development, and one has to accept that things will not become clear until the very end, but the payoff is genuinely breathtaking. Once you have seen the ending, it's impossible to watch the film the same way ever again. However, a second viewing is also a wonderful experience because seeing things from an entirely different perspective allows you to appreciate the careful construction.

7.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Should've been called "Tonto"

Posted : 11 years, 5 months ago on 7 July 2013 04:24 (A review of The Lone Ranger)

"Horse says you are a spirit walker. A man who's been to the other side and returned. A man who cannot be killed in battle."

With The Lone Ranger existing in film, television, comic book and radio form since the 1930s, it's unsurprising that the property was targeted to become a big-budget summer blockbuster by the folks at Disney. It's clear that producer Jerry Bruckheimer and the executives at Disney wanted another Pirates of the Caribbean, recruiting director Gore Verbinski, superstar Johnny Depp, and writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio in the hope of turning The Lone Ranger into a new franchise. What a shame that the resultant picture is one big mess; a noisy, agonisingly long and painfully leaden endeavour that's only intermittently entertaining. Some movie-goers might be reminded of The Mask of Zorro in terms of tone and story (especially since Elliott and Rossio also wrote it), but Verbinski's endeavour lacks the earlier picture's sense of pacing and panache, placing it firmly in the doldrums.


John Reid (Armie Hammer) is a district attorney dedicated to the proper channels of justice. While transporting vicious outlaw and cannibal Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) to the Texas town of Colby, where he'll be turned over to John's brother, Sheriff Dan (James Badge Dale), the train is hijacked by Cavendish's gang, who set the murderous criminal free. Although John refuses to pick up a firearm, Dan is compelled to deputise his brother as a group of rangers set out to find Cavendish. Unfortunately, the troupe are ambushed and attacked, with John emerging as the only survivor of the slaughter. Brought back to health by Comanche outcast Tonto (Johnny Depp), John sets out on a spiritual mission of justice. Learning that Dan's wife Rebecca (Ruth Wilson) and her son were kidnapped by Cavendish, John and Tonto look to bring the outlaw to justice, only to stumble upon a scheme involving the railroad and a silver mine fortune.

Rather than recreating the exhilarating magic of 2003's Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Verbinski channels the dead-on-arrival 2007 sequel At World's End with its bloated runtime, convoluted narrative, and lethally glacial pace. Worse, The Lone Ranger actually opens in 1933, introducing elderly Tonto (with Depp covered in phoney make-up), who tells stories about his adventures with John to a young boy in a Lone Ranger outfit. The device fails to fulfil any essential purpose, instead serving as a disruptive entry point that halts the pacing. Speaking of unnecessary subplots, Helena Bonham Carter shows up as a brothel owner with an ivory leg that can shoot bullets because writers Elliott, Rossio and Justin Haythe were apparently determined to cram in countless asides that detract from plot urgency. There's no reason for The Lone Ranger to run for almost two-and-a-half hours, aside from indulgence. As a result, the picture's midsection is a complete drag; boring and flat. Worse, the picture alternates between taking itself too seriously and not taking itself seriously enough; it's brutally violent one minute and a jokey farce the next. Most egregious is a scene involving cannibalism, which feels out of place in a Lone Ranger flick and even more out of place in a Disney movie.


The Lone Ranger does not look like a $250 million production, period. Films like Man of Steel and The Avengers were produced for less cash, yet both featured several large-scale action scenes and tremendously impressive production values. Even Quentin Tarantino made Django Unchained for a smaller sum, and his efforts are more impressive than anything glimpsed here. For what's supposed to be a fleet-footed adventure, The Lone Ranger is packed with too many scenes of drab character interaction venturing into superfluous narrative tangents. Nevertheless, the flick gets points for its lavish construction, with attractive cinematography making superb use of the magnificent locales, and with intricate sets and costumes. Moreover, some of the action sequences are admittedly spectacular. The best set-piece here is the finale, set to the William Tell Overture, which at long last delivers the type of fast-paced, old-fashioned cinematic excitement that we wanted all along. It's a genuinely rousing and spectacular climax, full of top-notch stunt work and seamless digital effects, and the tone is spot-on. Honestly, however, it feels like too little, too late - by the time the good stuff kicked in, I was numb from the past two hours of excessive bloat. It's a damn shame. And while The Lone Ranger is predominantly grounded, a few action beats are ridiculously over-the-top, killing credibility and clashing with Verbinski's dark tone.

Even though Hammer plays the titular Lone Ranger, Depp is very much the star of the show as Tonto; he's the one telling the story, and Depp is consistently foregrounded. He seems just to be playing another variation on Captain Jack Sparrow, serving as flimsy comic relief as opposed to anything sincere. A few attempts are made to give levity and depth to Tonto, but they're ineffective because Depp plays the character too broadly. Hammer, meanwhile, does what he can, but the material is working against him. Instead of a memorable hero, John Reid is completely bland, and he does a number of things that paint him as an unredeemable scumbag (he's willing to leave Tonto buried in the sand to die while he rides off on a horse…). Fichtner fares a bit better as the villain, and Tom Wilkinson espouses some welcome gravitas as a railroad magnate, but Ruth Wilson has nothing to work with as Dan's widow - she's just a damsel in distress, and Wilson was incapable of giving the role any pizzazz.


The Lone Ranger is entertaining at times, and it's marginally better than this reviewer expected it to be, but it remains an inconsistent, disappointing revival of the age-old brand name. In spite of its impressive production values, it predominantly lacks an all-important sense of spirit and fun. And although it was made for $250 million, it's hard to recall many especially note-worthy or amusing moments. Hell, I can barely remember any of the action sequences, either. Nobody really asked for a big-budget Lone Ranger flick, and calls for a sequel will be even less enthusiastic.

4.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

An Aussie thriller worth seeing

Posted : 11 years, 6 months ago on 30 June 2013 02:00 (A review of Inhuman Resources)

"Get back to work!"

A vicious thriller originating from Australia, Redd Inc. (aka Inhuman Resources) isn't a picture for the faint of heart. Tonally reminiscent of Saw and Hostel, it's an unforgivably bleak movie, with director Daniel Krige making the most of his limited budget by keeping things confined to focus on tension and gory make-up. Miraculously, it's a more skilful flick than other recent torture porn features, benefiting from strong performances and convincing make-up effects supervised by none other than horror veteran Tom Savini (who worked on the original Dawn of the Dead and too many other films to mention).


When several company executives are beheaded in a brutal multiple homicide, Thomas Reddmann (Nicholas Hope) is arrested and convicted for the crime, winding up dead as a consequence. One of the people who testified against Reddman was the innocuous Annabelle Hale (Kelly Paterniti), who works as an internet stripper. Months down the track, Annabelle is kidnapped, waking up in a dank office room chained to a computer desk with five others - including police officer Edward (Alan Dukes), psychic Sheena (Hayley McElhinney), and the kindly William (Sam Reid), all of whom were involved in the court case against Reddmann in some capacity. As it turns out, Redd is alive after all. Presenting himself to his hostages, Redd explains his innocence in the murder case, ordering them to pour through the evidence to find the real killer. Redd has zero tolerance for misconduct and punishes failure to work with severe penalties.

Written by Jonathon Green and Anthony O'Connor, Redd Inc. is tonally similar to other recent Australian exploitation pictures, containing shades of The Loved Ones and Wolf Creek. Genre fans who love seeing gooey gore delivered via practical effects will be thrilled with this movie, as it serves up tonnes of the red stuff using old-school methods. The legendary Savini supervised the effects, a prospect that should excite any horror buff worth their salt. There are many other nice touches here, too; Savini actually cameos in one scene, for instance, and his character sports a Dawn of the Dead poster on his wall. Added to this, it's darkly funny to see the murderous Redd drinking from a "World's Best Boss" coffee mug, and the film has a smattering of bare breasts for good measure. Krige and his writers have a firm grasp on what works in these types of flicks, delivering the superficial essentials as well as a twisty narrative that's not as simplistic as it seems.


If there's anything to criticise, it's the pacing. Krige was fighting an uphill battle here, attempting to keep the picture interesting despite most of the proceedings taking place in one location. At a hair under ninety minutes, it does get a bit repetitive in terms of visuals, though it is interesting more often than not. Perhaps with a bit more budget, the cinematic style could've been enhanced to keep the picture more involving. A bit more problematic is the screenplay, which isn't airtight; at one stage, a character flees while being pursued, as opposed to calling the police or trying to kill her pursuer despite being surrounded by potential weapons. There's also a twist towards the end that, frankly, I saw coming in the first ten minutes. Still, that's not to say Redd Inc. is a bust; on the contrary, it's decently written and executed, and the premise is original enough to distinguish itself in the crowded field of horror movies.

Krige's biggest asset is Nicholas Hope (Bad Boy Bubby), who delivers a delectably nuanced performance as the psychopathic Redd. Hope has understated charm on the surface, yet there's a sinister streak underneath. He's a great presence, and he's part of the reason why Redd Inc. works as well as it does. Meanwhile, the lively and cute Paterniti impresses as Annabelle, making for a fun, spunky and good-looking protagonist. The actress is a Home & Away veteran, but hopefully, this film will serve as a springboard for bigger and better things. After all, she's far more convincing than most of the horror heroines in Hollywood. There are other quality performances here, including director Krige himself who appears for a fleeting period, featuring in a fun cameo as one of Redd's hostages.


Redd Inc. is no masterpiece, and it won't scare you or bring you nightmares, but it's an entertaining genre effort orchestrated by a group of filmmakers who clearly love their exploitation cinema. Plenty of viscera is thrown around, yet director Daniel Krige also has an eye towards suspense and storytelling, making the most of the meagre resources at his disposal. Horror buffs should definitely check this one out, as it's ideal late-night viewing on a rainy Friday evening.

6.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Superman 2.0 for a new generation

Posted : 11 years, 6 months ago on 28 June 2013 07:48 (A review of Man of Steel)

"You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders."

Unlike Bryan Singer's largely derisive Superman Returns, which endeavoured to exist in the same continuity as the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, 2013's Man of Steel is a straight-up reboot, going back to the beginning to explore the iconic superhero's origins once again. Warner Brothers pulled out all the stops to ensure Man of Steel effectively resuscitated the Superman film franchise, recruiting David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan to handle the script and story. And in the hands of accomplished visual director Zack Snyder, this is an exhilarating blockbuster implemented on a grand scale, yet it still understands the value of small, intimate moments in between the scenes of destruction. While imperfect, Man of Steel dexterously reinvents the character for a new generation, bringing Superman back to life with finesse and confidence. And it's about time.


With the planet Krypton on the brink of destruction due to mismanagement of natural resources, scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) places his infant son Kal-El in a ship bound for Earth, along with data that could regenerate Kryptonian life on another planet. General Zod (Michael Shannon) leads a coup against the Kryptonian council, but fails, and is imprisoned in the Phantom Zone as punishment. Years later, on Earth, Kal-El is adopted by caring farmers Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Diane Lane), who name the boy Clark (Henry Cavill). Although it's clear that Clark has superpowers, he's advised to conceal them out of fear of humanity's reaction. As an adult, Clark draws the attention of Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who witnesses his powers and sets out to reveal the alien's identity. However, she develops respect for him, as Clark is revealed to be a decent, loving individual. But Earth is soon threatened by the arrival of General Zod, who has come to commence war on the planet and destroy the human race. Clark is compelled to reveal himself to the people of Earth to emerge as their saviour, ultimately putting his life of care and secrecy behind him.

The extent of Christopher Nolan's involvement has been contested since the feature's inception, with Nolan acting coyly when speaking about the subject. Besides the palpable tonal influence, Nolan's fingerprints on the picture are minimal, as his modus operandi is self-serious chatter and minimal action. According to Nolan, this is Snyder's film, and you can tell. It would seem that Nolan's name is all over the marketing merely for the box office boost.


To distinguish the picture from its predecessors, Goyer's script is non-linear; key events (like baby Kal-El's craft being found) are not shown, and Clark's background is conveyed through flashbacks intermingled with the narrative proper. With this device, Man of Steel does not feel like a structural clone of 1978's Superman, which is essential. What's notable about the movie is that it's more of a science fiction story about aliens rather than an outright fantasy adventure, which gives the narrative a realistic foundation and emphasises that, indeed, this is the story of an alien trying to ingratiate himself into Earth culture. It's a brand new tonal perspective for the franchise, which is refreshing. However, Goyer's script has its weaknesses. Clark is not humanised enough; his mild-mannered alter ego is not introduced until the very last scene, hence Clark spends the entire film as a sullen hero. The 1978 movie did a better job of portraying Superman, giving him more character and personality. He's a bit bland and generic here, though there's room to rectify this in the inevitable sequels.

There is an underlying stream of psychological complexity and emotional weight to Man of Steel that prevents it from being just another soulless CGI demo reel. Superman abstains from killing, yet something happens during the climax that tests his ethical standpoint, leading to controversy online (where else?) about a decision he is forced to make. This, along with another pivotal scene involving Pa Kent, adds a layer of moral wrangling not often glimpsed in blockbusters of this ilk, suggesting that being the hero sometimes means letting a few people die for the greater good. Fortunately, Man of Steel does not collapse under the weight of pretentious self-importance, a trap that Nolan's Batman films fell into. Snyder keeps the film focused and disciplined, although some of the action could've been scrapped in favour of further character interaction to enhance the picture's humanity.


To further distance itself from previous Superman features, Man of Steel carries a unique visual design. Krypton is reimagined as a vast, fantastical world (think Pandora) with flying creatures and advanced technology, while Superman's suit is redesigned, and Zod is heavily armoured. Snyder is a filmmaker renowned for action sequences, and he goes for broke here, acknowledging that both the hero and villain have the power of Gods, resulting in tremendous scenes of conflict. Watching Superman soaring across the globe and going toe-to-toe with Zod is riveting, and the destruction on offer here is spectacular, with the film excelling in terms of shot construction and digital effects. The CGI (courtesy of WETA Workshop) is out of this world, and Snyder goes nuts in his depiction of the devastation suffered by Smallville and Metropolis. Some have complained that Superman would not stage a war in such densely populated areas, but he did not have a choice, and the vast number of deaths continues to up the stakes as the ruthless Zod aspires to conquer the planet.

Although Cavill is no Christopher Reeve, he's a charming, dignified and engaging Superman, and his insanely muscular physique (that is not digitally enhanced) is spot-on. Cavill is an English actor, yet you wouldn't know it as he convincingly comes across as American. Meanwhile, Adams is a wonderful Lois Lane, exceedingly beautiful and with the right mixture of intelligence and vulnerability, though she doesn't quite have the feistiness that characterised Margot Kidder. Goyer and Snyder smartly avoid the contrivance of Lois being too stupid to realise that Clark and Superman are the same; she finds out right off the bat, which deepens their relationship. It's not an aspect previously explored, making sequels a tantalising prospect. As Jor-El, Crowe is suitably expressive and measured, with gravitas and charm that would make Marlon Brando proud. Also in the cast is Michael Shannon, who makes for a ruthless General Zod. It's a sinister role, and Shannon ran with it. Rounding out the main cast are Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, who provide strong, warm support as Clark's parents.


Man of Steel is touted as a dark vision of Superman, but this does not mean it's brooding or dour; instead, it is a serious take on the character, but Snyder still delivers joy and wonderment. It's a genuinely visionary interpretation of the character and his world. Luckily, the film doesn't spend a great deal of time setting up unanswered questions or untapped story beats for sequels, nor does it set out to establish the rumoured DC Comics Cinematic Universe. Rather, Snyder's film establishes a compelling new cinematic world for Superman to explore. The big question on everyone's minds will be whether or not it's superior to Richard Donner's beloved 1978 movie. It's a tough call to make, as 1978's Superman carried a superior screenplay while Man of Steel benefits from a flawless cinematic treatment that was just not possible three decades ago. There's room enough for two Superman origin tales to exist; both films are flawed but fantastic. Man of Steel is definitely better than all other cinematic incarnations of the character, and that cannot be debated. Competently executed and with a top-flight cast, Man of Steel is probably Snyder's best and most mature film to date. It's a hopeful start for what could finally be a strong Superman film series.

8.5/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Stupid to a criminal degree

Posted : 11 years, 6 months ago on 27 June 2013 01:37 (A review of The Purge)

"Decriminalised Murder. An outlet for American Rage."

There's nothing worse than watching a motion picture completely waste a brilliant premise. 2013's The Purge is one such movie. It's built on a marvellous idea that could've made for a mature and thought-provoking examination of contemporary society, but writer-director James DeMonaco has no interest in a quality motion picture, instead delivering a fatally ridiculous film that fails to take advantage of its potential. The Purge is stupid to a criminal degree, lobotomising itself over its eighty-minute duration. By the time the film reaches its climax, the proceedings have become so laughably silly that only the boldest viewers will make it through to the end.


In the near future, the United States government has sanctioned an annual "purge" for the country, wherein murder and assorted crimes are legal for twelve hours. Emergency services are suspended, police cannot be summoned, and general anarchy is permitted. As a result, crime rates for the other 364 days of the year are down, and the economy is more stable. Taking advantage of the situation, James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) is a home security salesman who has accrued substantial wealth through his business. On the night of the purge, James locks down the house as usual, ready to relax with wife Mary (Lena Headey), daughter Zoey (Adelaide Kane) and son Charlie (Max Burkholder). The night looks to be reasonably calm until Charlie decides to let a bloodied, helpless stranger (Edwin Hodge) enter their home. Making matters worse, the family are soon visited by a mob of armed "purgers" wanting to get the stranger. The Sandin family are given an ultimatum: give the man over, or the house will be stormed and all of them will be slaughtered.

Here's the thing: Charlie's choice to take in a potentially dangerous stranger is never believable, as it seems like it was only done for the sake of script convenience. And the family's decision to want to protect the guy, even though it could cost them their lives, is retarded. They do not know him, they owe him nothing, and yet they're prepared to protect him and possibly die for him due to a crisis of conscience? It's especially problematic since the stranger actually holds a gun to Zoey's head at one stage. And why is it that the armed mob spend so much time and effort trying to get to just one "homeless pig"? Couldn't they just keep hunting for other people? The Purge hopes nobody will think too much about it, as it's full of holes and vague motivations. Furthermore, the homeless guy is not even given a name or any characterisation beyond being a simple plot device. He does wear a set of military dog tags, though, to tell us that he must be a sympathetic good guy.


The idea of the annual purge is brilliant for a motion picture, provoking several questions. For instance, do businesses hire private armies to defend their property? What does this mean for the small businesses that are undoubtedly looted during the night? DeMonaco does show people killing and rioting, but what about other crimes? Do hackers and black marketers do most of their work during the purge? Alas, The Purge has no interest in exploring this stuff; instead, the premise is more like Assault on Precinct 13 (which was remade in 2005 from a script co-written by DeMonaco and starring Hawke), resulting in a routine "house under siege" flick marred by an over-reliance on silly horror movie theatrics. Indeed, DeMonaco wastes the most fertile premise in recent memory on a silly slasher movie that we've seen done before, done better, and done without all the elaborate set-up. Worse, DeMonaco captures a number of conflicts with herky-jerky cinematography, not to mention most scenes simply depict villains being conveniently killed mere moments before they plan to kill a main character.

Nit-pickers will adore The Purge, as DeMonaco's woeful screenplay of perpetual convenience, excessive idiocy, and unanswered questions is ripe for mauling. Had the writer-director pursued realism and depicted a truly nightmarish vision of society run amok, this could've been a harrowing motion picture full of potent societal commentary. But DeMonaco is only interested in cheap exploitation, with cartoonish violence replacing potentially fascinating details. The only real saving grace of the flick is Rhys Wakefield as the masked stranger; he's sinister and unpredictable, and his charisma makes him a memorable villain. The Purge's box office success has ensured that a sequel is coming, an avenue that might give the creative team a chance to create a truly epic horror film out of the superb central premise.

3.2/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

The superior version

Posted : 11 years, 6 months ago on 26 June 2013 10:28 (A review of Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut)

"The Kryptonian prophecy will at last be fulfilled. The son becomes the father, the father becomes the son... Farewell forever... Kal-El... remember me, my son."

For those unaware of the behind-the-scenes turmoil that occurred during the production of Superman II, here's a brief recap: director Richard Donner shot Superman I and II simultaneously, but filming on the second flick was halted before Donner could finish his work. Producers Ilya and Alexander Salkind did not want to pay Donner the money he was owed, and fired him, bringing in Richard Lester to take over the reins. Donner's vision was lost in the process, with Lester turning Superman II into a campy farce. Donner reportedly shot up to 80% of his Superman II, leading to a massive internet campaign demanding the release of Donner's missing footage. Thank God it finally happened, and we now have Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. While the continuity is shaky and this version falls short of perfection, the Donner Cut is more in line with the feel and tone of the first film, showing a devotion to character and logic that Lester's film sorely lacks.


Following on from Superman, the story finds Kryptonian rebels General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sara Douglas) and Non (Jack O'Halloran) freed from their Phantom Zone prison in space. Landing on Earth, the trio look to conquer the planet, briskly defeating the world's armies and overthrowing the President of the United States. Meanwhile, Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) becomes convinced that Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve) is Superman. After revealing his identity, Clark expresses his love for Lois, opting to give up his powers to be with her. Elsewhere, Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) escapes from prison and seeks to team up with Zod to kill Superman for good.

The Donner Cut was orchestrated by editor Michael Thau, who managed to unearth six tonnes of raw footage from the original shoot. With the input of Donner and (uncredited) writer Tom Mankiewicz, Thau set about assembling the lost motion picture using scattered puzzle pieces. It's a brilliant experiment in rewriting cinema history, and Thau has, for the most part, succeeded. Lester's theatrical Superman II was littered with high camp, turning the villains into cartoonish jokes, forgetting that Donner's mantra on the original picture was to sell the superhero story with actual sincerity. Fortunately, the Donner Cut removes Lester's insulting tomfoolery, and the resultant vision is definitely something to behold. The biggest curiosity of this version is the inclusion of screen test footage of Reeve and Kidder for a pivotal scene in which Lois reveals Clark to be Superman. Donner never got to shoot it for real, so Thau only had the screen tests to work with, hence Reeve's hairstyle and physique is inconsistent, and the lesser production values are jarring. Still, the scene is a brilliant one, and it definitely still has life to it.


The most treasured moments of the Donner Cut are the restored Marlon Brando scenes. Even though his scenes were filmed, Brando was removed from the theatrical Superman II due to financial and legal issues. Hence, seeing Brando's material here is incredible, and his inclusion gives the flick dramatic weight, on top of feeling more in keeping with the original film. Moreover, the stuff with Brando brings Clark's character arc full circle. If nothing else, the Donner Cut should be seen for Brando. Another strength is Reeve's performance. The movie features some of his finest moments as an actor, and he's a tremendous presence throughout. Most notable is the scene in which Clark realises the consequences of his choice to give up his powers; it's the performance of the actor's career. And the fact that Reeve's best acting moment was left on the cutting room floor for a quarter of a century is disgusting. The Donner Cut has other charms, too; the dialogue has that witty Mankiewicz sparkle, the photography is often eye-catching, and Donner maintains a strong pace throughout. The dramatics of the narrative are paid enough attention to give them full lift-off, and there are several exciting action set-pieces throughout.

Even considering the limitations of the material, the Donner Cut is still imperfect. There's one awkward toilet gag that feels astonishingly out of place, and the final five minutes or so fail to gel. Superman turns back time yet again to reverse everything that has happened and prevent Lois from knowing his true identity. This is followed by another scene of Clark punishing the bully he met earlier in the film, which no longer makes sense after the events of the picture are reversed. At least the amnesia kiss from Lester's version is removed, but it would've been far more interesting if Lois still knew Superman's identity at the end of the picture. Some of the special effects do look a tad shoddy, but they did not necessarily bother me; as explained in the DVD extras, Thau aspired to create retro special effects instead of polished 2006 digital effects.


The best part of Donner's Superman II is that it does not need to be viewed simply as a curiosity; it stands alone as a proper motion picture. Sure, the screen test footage does stand out, but everything else comes together to form a coherent whole, which is miraculous. It's infuriating to ponder just how close Donner and Mankiewicz were to finishing Superman II. If only the Salkinds permitted just a little bit of extra time before shutting down production, we would be left with a more complete motion picture that could've exceeded its predecessor. And if Donner had completed the movie as intended in the 1970s, there's a good chance it would've been on the same level as X2. As it is, though, the Donner Cut still remains a wonderful movie, and it's difficult to go back to Lester's campy film.

7.7/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Pulls Pixar out of the doldrums

Posted : 11 years, 6 months ago on 24 June 2013 04:05 (A review of Monsters University)

"I've been waiting for this my whole life! I'm gonna be a scarer!"

Out of the entire Pixar oeuvre, 2001's Monsters, Inc. was probably the one movie least in need of a sequel; the problems of both the characters and their world are resolved by the story's end, leaving nowhere to go. To circumvent this issue, 2013's Monsters University elects the prequel route, but that also comes with its own set of issues. The big problem facing this movie is that Monsters, Inc. spent its entire runtime revealing the scare business as one big sham, disproving the notion that infants are toxic, and discovering alternate energy sources. It, therefore, goes without saying that University is not interested in the thematic relevance of the original movie, content just to be a fun college comedy (think Animal House or Revenge of the Nerds) based in the Monsters, Inc. cinematic universe. Luckily, judged as an entertaining time, the film is a big success. It would be nice to see Pixar going for broke and venturing into original territory once again, but I'll gladly take Monsters University over the abominable Cars 2 or last year's ordinary Brave.


Since childhood, diminutive cyclops Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) has dreamed of becoming a distinguished scarer, aspiring to be Monsters, Inc.'s most fear-inducing employee. He finally looks to achieve his dreams at Monsters University and embraces the opportunity by studying all the textbooks he can. In class, he meets Sulley (John Goodman), who comes from a long family of scarers and, therefore, has a gigantic ego. Although Mike and Sulley immediately clash, they must put their differences aside to prove themselves as scarers, teaming up and joining outcast fraternity Oozma Kappa to enter the annual Scare Games competition. Also in their team are a bunch of kindly but non-scary members, including the middle-aged Don (Joel Murray) and meek pushover Squishy (Peter Sohn), leaving Mike with the challenging task of training the ghouls to get the group into shape.

Writers Robert L. Baird, Daniel Gerson and Don Scanlon evidently want us to ignore a line in the previous flick that revealed Mike and Sulley have been best buddies since elementary school. It's a conundrum that wasn't given much thought. Additionally, since we know that Mike and Sulley will ultimately become best friends, some of the dramatic tension is undercut, and the animosity they share comes off as perfunctory. University also abides by a standard storytelling template, and there isn't much room for emotion or heart, two elements that Monsters, Inc. had in spades. But the picture overcomes these flaws and problems by surprising in a few other areas, particularly the immensely imaginative final act that I personally did not see coming. At about the 70-minute mark, it looks like the movie is about to wrap up, but there's still more to come, and the subsequent climax is magnificent. On top of being exciting and tense, the finale of University delivers a few nice messages about facing the consequences of your actions and sometimes needing to use alternate methods to accomplish lifelong goals.


What's notable about Monsters University is its playful tone and script, which is the closest we've seen to the old Pixar charm since Toy Story 3. Although the movie is rarely laugh-aloud funny, it is very creative, getting plenty of mileage out of the college setting. Mike is depicted as a geeky, nervous freshman, while Sulley is a slacker, happy to coast through university on his single roar. And the depiction of the various college clubs and other students is amusing indeed. As to be expected, the animation is incredibly sumptuous, excelling in terms of texture and detail. Backing Monsters University is another outstanding score by Randy Newman, which helps set a light-hearted tone that director Scanlon maintains throughout. However, while the movie is fast-paced, it does run a fairly hefty 100 minutes, considerably longer than its predecessor. Perhaps some trimming may have given the picture an added zip.

It almost goes without saying, but Crystal and Goodman remain delightful as Mike and Sulley. Nothing here really stretches the range of either actor, but their delivery is excellent, and they're adept at humour (which is especially fortunate for Crystal, who defaced his reputation with 2012's Parental Guidance). The most notable vocal performer, though, is Helen Mirren, who plays the school's strict dean. Mirren plays this type of role well, and her aura of authority is often very compelling. Steve Buscemi is present as well, voicing the role of Randy. It's interesting to see Randy's origins, establishing the rivalry with Mike and Sulley glimpsed in Monsters, Inc., and showing what he was like before he became the villain. Meanwhile, Joel Murray is extremely lovable as Don, and Nathan Fillion makes an impression as the typical arrogant college bully.


Monsters University is not the most enrapturing Pixar flick, and older fans of Monsters, Inc. will not find it as emotionally affecting as the original picture. On its own merits, though, this prequel succeeds; it's an endearing effort to pull Pixar out of the doldrums, showing us that the studio has not lost its touch after a very underwhelming couple of years. And be sure to stick around until the end of the credits for one of the funniest gags in the movie.

7.4/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Powerful Korean anti-war effort

Posted : 11 years, 6 months ago on 22 June 2013 12:10 (A review of Go-ji-jeon)

A war movie from South Korea, 2011's The Front Line is an intimate depiction of the Korean War from a resolutely Korean standpoint. Rather than an American examination of the foreign conflict, this is a Korean flick with Korean actors, with an overwhelming sense of authenticity and a lack of Hollywood bias. Although The Front Line is visibly inspired by modern war movies in terms of its visual approach and narrative structure, there are enough unique twists and new details to make it worthwhile, not to mention it tells an important story about "The Forgotten War." It's a powerful anti-war film from director Hun Jang, packed with visceral combat sequences and thoughtful insights, and it contains some interesting observations about the roles that China and America played in the conflict.


The Front Line is set in the waning days of the Korean War, as the North and the South continue to attempt negotiations to end the hostilities and mutually agree on a border. Intelligence officer Eun-pyo Kang (Ha-kyun Shin) is sent to the front lines to investigate the recent death of a field lieutenant from Alligator Company, as there are fears that a spy is amongst them. Kang heads to Aerok Hills, a strategic location that keeps changing hands amid the fighting. Within Alligator Company is one of Kang's former comrades, Soo-hyuk Kim (Soo Go), whom he had long thought dead. To Kang's shock, Kim has become a fearless commander, relinquishing his humanity to become a ruthless leader lacking a moral compass. As it turns out, the situation at Aerok Hills is far more complicated than Kang could have imagined, confounding Kang as he also has to deal with the ever-present threat of the North Korean soldiers.

Although North Korea is prevalent in the media at present, it's doubtful that many Westerners actually know much about Korea's long history or, indeed, much about the Korean War. The Front Line is a bit hard to follow at times as some facets of the war aren't sufficiently explained, not to mention the structure is confusing, with a few flashbacks that are inadequately clarified. But once the main story kicks in, the film soars. What's especially notable about The Front Line is how it underscores the futility of war and highlights that everyday soldiers have no hatred for their enemies outside of what they're told to do. Aerok Hills changes hands so much that South Korean soldiers dig a small hole to store chocolates, matches, and cigarettes. The other side finds this hole and takes the items but leaves other things, including rice, wine and letters to home that they hope their enemies will post. Later, once the ceasefire is signed and the war is over, a troupe of soldiers are bathing themselves, and their enemies pass by. But they don't open fire on each other, prompting a North Korean officer to comment, "I guess it's really over." Furthermore, I'm not sure how accurate the climax is, but it's heart-wrenching to watch as it sums up the irrationality of war in a potent fashion. The messages are familiar, but that doesn't make them any less impactful.


It's inarguable that Korea has emerged as a moviemaking force to be reckoned with over the past decade or so, and The Front Line is another superlative demonstration of the country's abilities. The flick was produced on a relatively modest budget, but you'd never know it; it has the appearance of a $100 million blockbuster, with large-scale battle scenes and spot-on production values. The reason for this is pretty clear - Koreans don't work for exorbitant sums, nor are they driven by ego, hence the majority of the funding goes towards sets, costumes and locations. The Front Line is a breathtaking cinematic experience, with riveting battle sequences assembled with top-notch skill in every department. The immersive sound design makes you feel in the thick of the action, the film pulls no punches when it comes to gore, and the special effects are seamless, resulting in some of the finest combat scenes in recent memory. Moody lighting design also adds visual interest; one of the battles is lit by sporadic flares. Fortunately, outside of the big battle scenes, director Hun Jang shows a great filmmaking eye. If there's anything to nit-pick, it's that The Front Line was shot digitally on Red Epic cameras when a grainy 35mm aesthetic (like Saving Private Ryan) would have been more effective.

While the characters at the centre of the film are stereotypes, the actors imbue their roles with enough depth to make them believable. The dialogue between the soldiers is unusually strong, and the script shows a proclivity for philosophical discussions, exploring the effects of war on a man's soul. The Front Line is well balanced between character interaction and large-scale battle scenes, emphasising that this is a war drama instead of an exploitative action film. It's a fine line to walk, and Jang nails it. However, the acting from the English-speaking American soldiers is utterly horrendous: stiff, wooden and unbelievable. At least said performers are only present in one scene, though.


The Front Line is not perfect - its opening scenes are clunky and unfocused, it's overlong at almost two hours, and it devolves into some needless melodrama in its third act - but it's a breathtaking motion picture, and its minor flaws are not enough to undo the movie's endless strengths. War buffs owe it to themselves to seek this one out; it's easily on a par with the wildly acclaimed The Brotherhood of War.

7.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Lethally boring

Posted : 11 years, 6 months ago on 21 June 2013 05:01 (A review of After Earth)

"Fear is not real. The only place that fear can exist is in our thoughts of the future. It is a product of our imagination, causing us to fear things that do not at present and may not ever exist. That is near insanity."

It's telling that After Earth is the latest directorial effort of M. Night Shyamalan, but the marketing campaign has made absolutely no mention of this fact. A one-time critical wunderkind, Shyamalan has fallen far from grace, reaching an all-time low with 2010's The Last Airbender, which should've ended his filmmaking career. Although After Earth is not a Shyamalan movie in the typical sense (he only co-wrote, and the story isn't his), it retains the director's eye-rolling trademarks: awkward pauses, muted performances and a subdued atmosphere. Unfortunately, this translates to a lethally boring sci-fi production with flaccid direction, making After Earth a total drag instead of a mind-blowing action-adventure.


In the future, Earth has become uninhabitable, compelling the human race to abandon their home and colonise the distant planet of Nova Prime. Said planet is home to an aggressive race of aliens called Ursas, who are blind but can smell their prey's fear. Military leader Cypher Raige (Will Smith) is the best at battling the Ursas, learning to relinquish his fear and thus become invisible to the predators. Unfortunately, Cypher's son Kitai (Jaden Smith, Will's son) is falling short of his father's expectations, though he wants to prove himself. On a whim, Cypher takes Kitai on a mission into deep space with an Ursa egg in the cargo hold. But the ship crumbles in deep space, causing them to crash-land on Earth, leaving everyone dead except for Cypher and Kitai. They require a beacon to signal for help, but it's in the tail-section of the ship, located about 100 kilometres of dangerous terrain away. Cypher has two broken legs, thus Kitai is their only hope.

If nothing else, After Earth is a unique viewing experience since it displays what happens when Shyamalan and a star with a comparably inflated ego collaborate to produce a metaphorical, self-regarding, semi-autobiographical motion picture. After all, Will Smith wrote the story, casting himself as the most awesome and famous dude in the universe who tries to guide his teenage son to follow in his intimidating footsteps. Boy, that's subtle. And let's take a moment to let it sink in that Will's character is named Cypher Raige. Fucking Cypher Raige! What's tragic about After Earth is that this is a boring survival story backed with a potentially exciting mythology. The film does attempt to explore it via voiceover in the opening credits, but it fails to do much else, leaving unanswered questions and untapped potential, especially since a whole lot of literature was actually written regarding this world. Why have humans stopped using guns and projectile weapons of all sorts in the future? They only use blades here, yet firearms would be much more effective against the Ursas.


What's astonishing about After Earth is how small it feels. Here's a story set on a post-apocalyptic Earth, and yet Kitai wanders through endless regular-looking forests and landscapes as opposed to destroyed cities or anything else that would've made for compelling viewing. The fact that the film lacks scope makes me wonder where exactly the $130 million budget went (no doubt Shyamalan and Will Smith took a large portion each). Meanwhile, none of Earth's animals have evolved in any creative way, and the digital effects are seriously terrible. The computer screens and space stuff look okay, but the animals look like a PS2-era video game. Superior CGI has been glimpsed in movies on the SyFy Channel. Furthermore, Shyamalan does not have a firm enough grasp on large-scale action. Despite the deadly scenarios that Kitai becomes entangled in, the movie just isn't exciting. Even the final showdown between Kitai and an Ursa (which lasts all of five minutes) is a bore. The attempts at suspense and tension fall flat, with hindrances (running low on breathing fluid, being stung by a bug) coming off as perfunctory and rote. There's nothing to put you on the edge of your seat. The only surprising thing about After Earth is that it's not in 3D. Whoa.

Since this is a vanity project for Will Smith, his performance is incredibly self-serious. The actor sheds his comedic, light-hearted persona entirely, becoming emotionless and stoic. While it's somewhat commendable for Smith to attempt to stretch his range, he's not playing to his strengths here. Try as he might, Smith is hit-and-miss as a serious performer, and he's dull as dishwater as Raige. And nothing against Jaden Smith, but the young guy is terrible here. Flat, forced, unengaged and unengaging, Jaden does nothing worthwhile with the script. As a result, all of the dramatic scenes between Will and Jaden are boring, destroying all potential for a compelling survival tale. It's pretty unsurprising, though, as the actors in Shyamalan movies are often sombre and sedate. Outside of the Smith boys, there really aren't any other performers worth mentioning, as they all receive what amounts to cameo appearances.


Judged as a father-son survival story, After Earth is dramatically limp and uninvolving. And as a science fiction action-adventure, it's even worse, with barely a handful of set pieces, none of which provide any lasting impact. The film looks decent enough, but the unconvincing CGI is too distracting, and ultimately, there's nothing new to see here. After Earth cannot have been created by the same M. Night Shyamalan who gave us the masterpieces of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. Where the hell has that artistic, intelligent filmmaker gone? This movie feels like the work of a gun-for-hire who just doesn't care anymore.

4.1/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Better than expected

Posted : 11 years, 6 months ago on 20 June 2013 01:26 (A review of World War Z)

"Every human being we save is one less zombie to fight."

Here's the shocker: World War Z doesn't suck. It's been impossible to miss all the bad press about the movie across its production period, most notoriously when it entered a reported seven weeks of reshoots in a bid to salvage the picture. Yet, the finished product is surprisingly good, an enjoyable though not perfect big-budget zombie epic based on Max Brooks' 2006 novel of the same name. In an age full of small-scale zombie stories like Dawn of the Dead and TV's The Walking Dead, it's refreshing to watch World War Z, which is more of a global action-thriller than a simple survival story. Nevertheless, the movie is flawed in several departments. It's serviceable as a blockbuster, but that's pretty much all it is: a well-paced, conventional action film in need of a more robust script.


A former UN researcher, Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) is now a devoted family man, looking out for his adoring wife Karin (Mireille Enos) and two daughters (Sterling Jerins and Abigail Hargrove). But a zombie outbreak begins unfolding right in front of them, prompting Gerry's former employers to airlift the family to safety. With a team investigating the outbreak to find a cure, Gerry is forced to offer his services and is sent on a globe-trotting mission to find the source of the disease. Leaving his family on board a military aircraft carrier, Gerry heads off with a small team to start an investigation before it's too late for humanity.

Reports on the budget for World War Z vary wildly, with some publications claiming the flick cost up to $400 million, a staggering sum for a motion picture that looks like it was produced for about a quarter of that amount. Of course, one has to consider that about 40 minutes of the film were outright abandoned in post-production, prompting Paramount and Pitt's production company Plan B to splash out more money to have an entirely new third act written and filmed. The script is still marred by problematic aspects despite all the reshuffling, though. For starters, it's never clear why Gerry's former boss wants him, as he only has a vaguely defined background, and the script lacks meaty character development. Moreover, World War Z fails to explore the intriguing philosophical questions of what happens when society breaks down. To its credit, the script does not turn Gerry into a superhuman, though credulity is stretched when he and one of his comrades are the sole survivors of a plane crash.


Brooks' novel was more or less a satire of today's post-9/11 anxiety and America's foreign policy, and it was told from multiple perspectives without a central protagonist, making it suitable fodder for a television miniseries as opposed to a feature film. The adapted screenplay for World War Z (which was famously written and rewritten by at least half a dozen people) disposes of the satiric slant as well as the multiple perspectives, turning the source material into a simple blockbuster about Gerry and his wife and kids. Following brisk introductory time with the Lane family, the outbreak begins, and the rest of World War Z becomes a succession of set-pieces. Hence, while the book resembled Steven Soderbergh's Contagion, director Marc Forster's film is more like Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds. That said, though, World War Z really soars in its final act when we get into reshoot territory. The seams of the reshoots are visible if you look for them, yet the movie actually gels, with the rewriting (courtesy of Damon Lindelof and Drew Goddard) resulting not in an idiotic action climax but an intelligent, taut and tense finale more focused on character dynamics and stealth than endless zombie killing.

The biggest issue with World War Z is director Forster. In the hands of a superior craftsman, the film could've soared to unimaginable heights, but Forster is not cut out for helming blockbusters. Although a handful of action beats do work, multiple sequences are marred by hideous shaky-cam and frenetic editing, turning potentially exhilarating set-pieces into incoherent jumbles. At times, it's difficult to discern the geography of various scenes. However, the camera movement fortunately settles down in the final act, exhibiting evidence that Forster may have indeed been fired (though I can only speculate on the matter) and replaced with a more patient filmmaker. The rest of the picture's technical specs are impressive, with a particularly propulsive score, and the performances across the board are strong. Pitt is the heart of the movie. Having produced the film as well, it's clear that Pitt actually cares here, resulting in one of his most focused performances in a blockbuster to date. He works well as an Everyman, and it's a nicely grounded turn that gives the picture a welcome degree of humanity.


Unfortunately, no matter how you cut it, you simply cannot win with a PG-13 zombie flick, and the docile rating takes its toll on World War Z. The camera awkwardly shies away from capturing the attacks while several wounds are bewilderingly downplayed. A severed hand produces about as much blood as a paper cut, and Gerry forgets to bleed when a piece of shrapnel pierces him. Since these are not "classical" zombies, excessive gore was not necessary, but it is idiotic for R-rated content like major wounds to be watered down. (The unrated extended cut is the superior way to experience the movie.) Do it properly, or not at all. Worse, the walking dead are digital here, denying a tangible quality to make them believable. At times, the CGI does its job well enough, but at other times, it's distractingly obvious, in need of the practical make-up effects that have served the genre well for so long. Also missing is a sense of awe and loss. We see people getting killed, but we don't feel affected by it, and there aren't any moments to give you goosebumps. It's all a bit middle-of-the-road.


Fortunately, the makers took no chances with sequel prospects, leaving room for a possible sequel but not foolishly hedging their bets by closing on a cliffhanger. Hence, the story is wrapped up in a satisfying enough fashion, but more can be done in the potential franchise if this hugely expensive investment pays off for the studio. At the end of the day, World War Z is okay; not great, but by no means horrible. There's nothing here that hasn't been done better before - the science stuff was much more substantive in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the fast zombies were more terrifying in 28 Days Later - yet it remains solid on its own terms. World War Z is not exactly cohesive since it begins as a frenetic actioner before transitioning into a patient thriller, but it comes together in an entertaining enough fashion, which may seem like a hollow victory, but it's more than most of us expected.

6.3/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry