Oh dear. I'm such a scaredy cat. I blame Mark Kermode for this one.
The good doctor thought this was great, so it ended up on our Love Film list. It arrived last night and I hate to admit this (because I appreciate it was ridiculous) but I didn't like it. I hid behind a cushion. It's a kind of a 'my first comedy horror' from Gremlins director Joe Dante aimed at teenagers. Thing is: I'm not a teenager and I don't like horror. And that's no laughing matter.
The premise is some kids move into a new neighbourhood and discover a whacking great big hole under their house. Good job the previous tennant moved out without so much of a post it note explaining it's a kind of gate way to hell and they best not remove the flimsy padlocks he's attached. But they do, and yes, all hell breaks loose - sort of.
Hell broke loose in the form of a terrible, slightly stunted script which trys to pack in slick one liners from the three lead characters. It just doesn't sound like normal converstaion. Even from grunting teenagers. Also, there's some awful plot decisions - huge story gaps which require a leap of faith from the audience as big as getting on board with the concept of the film in the first place.
So why did it scare me?
There's a freaky horrible clown.
Oh, it's nasty. Like that early 90s horror Childs Play but more menacing. It winks. Pure evil.
And then there's the nerve shattering high strings throughout the whole audio soundtrack. It's relentless. Like the foghorn in Shutter Island, it's permanently unsettling. Even in the day-time, sun-shining, pool swimming moments. "Agh, shut it off", I heard myself silently scream.
This teen-horror flick then descends into an odd commentary on domestic violence. It's like that scene in Hitchcock's Spellbound which Salvador Dali directed. It's super surreal, it's a brave artistic decision, but unlike Hitchcock, I didn't feel under a spell. Rather, I felt the director, Joe Dante, had watched a Tim Burton film the night before and thought he'd have a go. Just plain odd.
Verdict - 1 out of 5 - mainly for the comedy clown fight at the end.
Thanks for finding my blog about my love of film, the courses I take and my general babble and ramblings about what happens after watching movies, good and bad. Advance warning for Spoilers - sorry.
Let The Right One In
I wasn’t keen to watch this, but was convinced by some good reviews and a persistent fiancĂ©.
I’m not a vampire/ horror/ gore film fan – I’m pretty squeamish with a hugely active imagination. I think my ability to suspend belief means that those visceral images don’t seem absurd to me, so they stick in my head for months afterwards preventing me from sleeping soundly!
Saying that, Let the Right One In (the original, not the pointless American remake) was not the blood-bath I feared. It was really a film about disconnected youth, a coming of age genre which happened to feature some pretty dark characters.
The little girl vampire, ‘Eli’ is secondary to the lonely characters which dwell in a rather mournful housing estate, home to hero, and local boy, ‘Oscar’.
Her, and her father’s, arrival don’t bring the community any moral message eg, they don’t gel this disjointed neighbourhood together, and neither do they rip it apart. You get the sense that the lonely occupants will continue their sad lives in exactly the same way after the vampires leave. After all, the ‘murders’ hardly stir the other characters into action or feeling - even the ones directly affected.
The ‘father’ figure is almost laughable. I felt like he was a bit dim, because he fails to execute the two men he identifies as ‘food’, barely speaks and offers himself as a wilful sacrifice hours later. It’s not even clear if he’s a vampire, or a pervert who looks after ‘Eli’?
The film is beautiful. Very architectural in cinematography. Clean lines, wide angle shots. Colours have been washed away to a wintry palette of grey, blue and white – with just the odd highlight of contrasting orange or yellow coming from the boy Oscar.
The director, Tomas Alfredson, uses a lot of close ups of peoples’ hands or ears, or back of head – rather than their face. This ‘first person’ technique, makes the film feel very intimate, but also frustrates the narrative, as you feel you want to look around you and you can’t – you’re blinkered at the will of the director.
Other than some moments a conservative American audience wouldn’t stomach (the child nudity for example) I can’t understand why there was a need to remake this. Yes, it’s in Swedish, but it’s a nice, discombobulating language to listen to which adds to the disjointed feeling of the film. Also, the dialogue is not dominant, it’s very much the ‘atmosphere’ of the film which makes the lasting impression – what you see, not what you hear.
The best of example is the very original ending, with ‘Oscar’ hiding from the horrors above him in the pool. I HATE gore, but in this moment, I found myself inwardly cheering for Eli that she had come to save the day.
4 out of 5 – very surprised by this original, strangely uplifting film.
I’m not a vampire/ horror/ gore film fan – I’m pretty squeamish with a hugely active imagination. I think my ability to suspend belief means that those visceral images don’t seem absurd to me, so they stick in my head for months afterwards preventing me from sleeping soundly!
Saying that, Let the Right One In (the original, not the pointless American remake) was not the blood-bath I feared. It was really a film about disconnected youth, a coming of age genre which happened to feature some pretty dark characters.
The little girl vampire, ‘Eli’ is secondary to the lonely characters which dwell in a rather mournful housing estate, home to hero, and local boy, ‘Oscar’.
Her, and her father’s, arrival don’t bring the community any moral message eg, they don’t gel this disjointed neighbourhood together, and neither do they rip it apart. You get the sense that the lonely occupants will continue their sad lives in exactly the same way after the vampires leave. After all, the ‘murders’ hardly stir the other characters into action or feeling - even the ones directly affected.
The ‘father’ figure is almost laughable. I felt like he was a bit dim, because he fails to execute the two men he identifies as ‘food’, barely speaks and offers himself as a wilful sacrifice hours later. It’s not even clear if he’s a vampire, or a pervert who looks after ‘Eli’?
The film is beautiful. Very architectural in cinematography. Clean lines, wide angle shots. Colours have been washed away to a wintry palette of grey, blue and white – with just the odd highlight of contrasting orange or yellow coming from the boy Oscar.
The director, Tomas Alfredson, uses a lot of close ups of peoples’ hands or ears, or back of head – rather than their face. This ‘first person’ technique, makes the film feel very intimate, but also frustrates the narrative, as you feel you want to look around you and you can’t – you’re blinkered at the will of the director.
Other than some moments a conservative American audience wouldn’t stomach (the child nudity for example) I can’t understand why there was a need to remake this. Yes, it’s in Swedish, but it’s a nice, discombobulating language to listen to which adds to the disjointed feeling of the film. Also, the dialogue is not dominant, it’s very much the ‘atmosphere’ of the film which makes the lasting impression – what you see, not what you hear.
The best of example is the very original ending, with ‘Oscar’ hiding from the horrors above him in the pool. I HATE gore, but in this moment, I found myself inwardly cheering for Eli that she had come to save the day.
4 out of 5 – very surprised by this original, strangely uplifting film.
Super 8
I loved this ripping-rollercoaster of a film. Brilliant. And better than I expected, which says a lot as it's not unreasoable to expect a lot from a JJ Abrahams and Spielberg production.
This is not a not a 'nostalgic triumph' as some reviewers have said. It’s a triumph. But it’s realistic, not nostalgic.
I’ll tell you why.
For ages Hollywood has created this delusionary world of childhood which is one extreme or the other. My secondary education was nothing like High School Musical. But my summer holidays were like Super 8 (except minus the alien and whole-scale destruction of my home town – which wouldn't have been a bad planning choice)
What I mean is, I’m sick of seeing perfect kids on screen, speaking in snappy one-liners, going home to their parents who are only 10 years older than them.
So the casting of Super 8 is genius. They’re real, rounded and believable characters, who speak like kids, act like kids (the scene in the diner has dialogue even Oscar winners couldn’t keep pace with).
I could relate to this version of childhood. I remember having a tiny, messy bedroom full of homemade toys and artwork; cycling everywhere; hanging out with best friends playing mindless games in the park with the other neighbourhood kids. There were fat kids, and kids with giant dental braces and kids who liked to blow stuff up, because that’s what kids are like. Even the 'it' kids were low-key social heros - popular because they had their own climbing frame, not because they looked like models.
It made me feel really grateful that I stubbornly didn’t want to ‘grow up’ and how lucky I was to have the freedom to disappear every day during the summer holidays without having to call home on my iphone every 10 minutes to reassure parents who read that a paedo was on the loose from a Daily Mail twitter. Well, at least this is what I assume modern parenting is like (I read it on the Daily Mail). The parents in this film aren’t around (literally for ‘Joe’ and ‘Alice’) but life is not dysfunctional.
So many films present an aspiration to kids to act older than they are. What a shame. Kids need to be free-range, to see that mucking about on meagre pocket money with DIY projects can be so much more fun than anything you can buy.
Maybe this ‘nostalgic’ snapshot (helped by the deliberately celluloid, 70s sepia-colour filter throughout) will reawaken a backlash against mindless consumerism. I overheard a commentator on radio 4 observe that children’s TV shows in the 80s showed you how to make your own entertainment out of egg cartons, loo rolls and a bit of imagination. By contrast, modern day MTV is full of a world of unachievable glitz. No wonder people think this is nostalgic. People have forgotten how to make your own fun – and I’m not talking about anything romantic.
But that leads me onto another good point. How sweet, honest and heart-felt the ‘romance’ between Joe and Alice is. How easy could it have been to end up with big kiss like the usually Hollywood tosh (usually accompanied by starlight, all the bullies from high school watching, and an epic soundtrack, maybe even flying involved – see Twilight for reference). No. This is so sweet. They hold hands and you know everything will be okay.
Final points:
• Another film which manages to successfully mix CGI with real world sets (see Inception).
• This film is mirrored by the ‘play within a play’ (not that Abrahams is Shakespeare) which ‘Charlie’ makes (wait for the end credits) - it has every genre neatly covered (crime, spy, action, war, buddy, coming of age, romance, family drama and not forgetting the big one, sci-fi) spliced with great dialogue, inspired special effects, and moments of genuine pathos and triumph. Well, maybe that’s a bit rich. It’s 3 minutes long, but I still enjoyed it.
• As with any sci-fi monster/ alien films, I always think it is better if you don’t actually see the big scary beast. I think my imagination is better than any graphic animator’s. I was hoping, like the first two-thirds of the film, this might have remained as sneaky scary snippets. But no, he’s got to look it in the eye at the end so we realise ‘who’s the real monster’ and thus learn the lesson. Sigh. Still it wasn’t as bad as the pixelated mess they created for Cloverfield.
• I thought I heard composer Michael Giacchino mix in a few ‘Jon Williams’ ET-style musical moments.
5 out of 5 – simply super.
Cemetery Junction
This coming of age, directorial debut for Gervais and Merchant, was roundly ‘okay’. Basically, if only Gervais could have kept his ego in check and realise that by adding himself, Karl Pilkington and Stephen Merchant he ruined what was a heart-felt, interesting movie.
I’m not against feel-good, sentimentalised drama, if done well it can be very enjoyable, and this, I think falls in that category. The three lead males, Freddy, Bruce, Snork (Christian Cooke, Tom Hughes and Jack Doolan) were well cast, supported by a great script which allowed them to create rounded and believable characters. Special note to ‘funny’ guy Jack Doolan who manages to dance a difficult jog between comedy and tragedy with his character Snork – moving away from the slapstick temptation I’m sure would have been an easy route, based on the script.
Supported by screen powerhouse Ralph Fiennes and Emily Watson (who manage to keep their screen presence subtle and poignant) – especially the moment Mrs Kendrick talks about the last time she was thanked for a cup of tea.
But this family contrasted wildly to ‘Freddy’s - with Ricky-I-can-only-be-Brent Gervais as a buffoonish patriarch – so much so these scenes seemed crudely spliced in from a sitcom, entirely separate from the rest of the drama.
Watching the extras afterwards there was one scene which shouldn’t have been deleted as it gave so much more insight into Bruce. Desperate to get Freddy out for a drink, he takes the task of selling life insurance policies from him, and swiftly despatches five leads at a nearby funeral. It’s at that point you really understand the potential he has, which makes it all the sadder that he’s wasting it in Cemetery Junction.
If it didn’t have the odd cameos from Gervais and co, this would have been very good; sadly they add a jarring oddity to an otherwise heartfelt, nostalgic drama. Stick to the script writing.
3 out of 5 – mainly for the many genius one-liners (‘stop buying music made by puffs and get some Elton John’).
Continuity geekery – many of the houses in 1973 Reading apparently had double glazing. Owch.
SALT
Oh dear. I wanted to avoid the obvious Tomb Raider versus Bourne, but alas, that's exactly what this is. But not as good. At all.
SALT is like some retro love letter to late 80s actions films. Russia are the enemy, the cold war is still a red hot issue, and the lead character's a one-dimensional muscle fest...except this time, with a low cut vest and a 34DD chest.
If this had been made in the late 80s it would have been revolutionary - a female bond-style action hero would have been something a bit different. Luckily Demi Moore came along 5 years later with GI Jane to show everyone why that idea is a bit pants. Unfortunately, and I'm all for bigging up the ladies, Angelina is no different.
What would have made this interesting is to see how a leading lady would go about being the big bad Bond - surely with all those men in power an attractive spy would have no problem getting to the heart of an organisation and bringing it down using nothing more than a seductive wink and a bit of subtle feminine charm? No, apparently not. Ms Salt is just like Arnie, she likes to talk a little and tote guns a lot to get the job done. Sigh. It was an interesting idea which was shot in the face by director Philip Noyce.
The poster states clearly, 'who is Salt' like it's some deep mystery. Well, I'll be frank, I'm not the brightest crayon in the box when it comes to spotting plot twists but even I had managed to work this one out about half way through.
Big boo. However, one mildly interesting thing was the documentary on the Blu-ray which showed how they managed to successfully digitally recreate quite a lot of the action sequences and the 'elevator' scene (Mission Impossible 1 style). I had no idea I was watching a computer game, so I guess that's one progressive element to the movie.
Over all 2 out 5 - watch out for Angelina's unique running style.
SALT is like some retro love letter to late 80s actions films. Russia are the enemy, the cold war is still a red hot issue, and the lead character's a one-dimensional muscle fest...except this time, with a low cut vest and a 34DD chest.
If this had been made in the late 80s it would have been revolutionary - a female bond-style action hero would have been something a bit different. Luckily Demi Moore came along 5 years later with GI Jane to show everyone why that idea is a bit pants. Unfortunately, and I'm all for bigging up the ladies, Angelina is no different.
What would have made this interesting is to see how a leading lady would go about being the big bad Bond - surely with all those men in power an attractive spy would have no problem getting to the heart of an organisation and bringing it down using nothing more than a seductive wink and a bit of subtle feminine charm? No, apparently not. Ms Salt is just like Arnie, she likes to talk a little and tote guns a lot to get the job done. Sigh. It was an interesting idea which was shot in the face by director Philip Noyce.
The poster states clearly, 'who is Salt' like it's some deep mystery. Well, I'll be frank, I'm not the brightest crayon in the box when it comes to spotting plot twists but even I had managed to work this one out about half way through.
Big boo. However, one mildly interesting thing was the documentary on the Blu-ray which showed how they managed to successfully digitally recreate quite a lot of the action sequences and the 'elevator' scene (Mission Impossible 1 style). I had no idea I was watching a computer game, so I guess that's one progressive element to the movie.
Over all 2 out 5 - watch out for Angelina's unique running style.
Alice in wonderland - Disney (1951)
"Twas brillig, and the slithey toathes, did gire and gymble in the wabe..."
The sound of Sterling Holloway's voice singing this iconic poem as the Cheshire Cat is as nostalgic to me as warm rice pudding on a cold winters night. So, what better way to relieve the tension of work than through the mad language of Louis Carol and the vibrant colours and songs of Walt Disney.
This is by far the best adaptation of the book I’ve ever seen (sorry Tim Burton, but yours was not up to par), and is all the better for avoiding the grotesque Duchess and the pig story which haunted me from the radio edit.
As my favourite Disney - yes, I know there are many excellent others - this is particularly special to me, and so it seems, to Walt Disney himself.
Disney had tried to make this movie since 1923, when he made a live-action-animation hybrid film called the Alice Comedies (a technique which is both terrifying and impressive - it preceded Who Framed Roger Rabit by about 60 years) which proves Walt was somewhat obsessed with this story.
In the 1930s silent film legend Mary Pickford heard a rumour Disney were going to animate this treasured tales and put herself forward to play the lead character. All through 1937,1938 and 1939 Walt was working on the final look of the film story boarding with British artist David Hall. Hall's illustrations were brilliant, surreal, whimsical and macabre all at once, which frankly sums up Louis Carol’s original book.
After the war, Aldous Huxley wrote a screen play and Ginger Rogers recorded an album of songs, showing just how much this novel struck a chord with society at the time. However, it wasn’t until Mary Blair came along that the film took off.
Mary's tour of South America during the late 1940s was the catalyst to get the project moving again. Bold, bright and surreal the art of colonial areas influenced the final style and look of Alice. It was a change of pace for Mary who went on to design the look and feel of Cinderella and Peter Pan. But this distorted perspective and jolly colours have remained dominate in Disney's output even in recent times with Up and MONSTERS Inc.
But the most exciting part of the production story is about the Mad Hatter's tea party.
During the animation process, it’s not uncommon for the studio to film sections with actors to inspire the artists. The famous ‘tea party’ scene featured celebrated 'vaudeville' actor Ed Wynn as the Hatter. His talent for improv was so good, that from that scene they directly used his audio track, never needing to recorded his voice again. Moreover, his impulsive, spontaneous live performance was duplicated scene for scene by the animator’s pencils.
After watching this I thought of how much influence its had on cinema since. Forgive me if this is tenuous, but even with David Lynch. In particular, the moment Alice starts to explain what her mad world is, there’s a flickering moment in the river when we’re transported to Wonderland, yet it looks exactly like the real world. If anyone’s seen Mulholland Drive, then you might know what I mean. There's a seamless switch between real/ unreal which is not dissimilar to Alice...
The sound of Sterling Holloway's voice singing this iconic poem as the Cheshire Cat is as nostalgic to me as warm rice pudding on a cold winters night. So, what better way to relieve the tension of work than through the mad language of Louis Carol and the vibrant colours and songs of Walt Disney.
This is by far the best adaptation of the book I’ve ever seen (sorry Tim Burton, but yours was not up to par), and is all the better for avoiding the grotesque Duchess and the pig story which haunted me from the radio edit.
As my favourite Disney - yes, I know there are many excellent others - this is particularly special to me, and so it seems, to Walt Disney himself.
Disney had tried to make this movie since 1923, when he made a live-action-animation hybrid film called the Alice Comedies (a technique which is both terrifying and impressive - it preceded Who Framed Roger Rabit by about 60 years) which proves Walt was somewhat obsessed with this story.
In the 1930s silent film legend Mary Pickford heard a rumour Disney were going to animate this treasured tales and put herself forward to play the lead character. All through 1937,1938 and 1939 Walt was working on the final look of the film story boarding with British artist David Hall. Hall's illustrations were brilliant, surreal, whimsical and macabre all at once, which frankly sums up Louis Carol’s original book.
After the war, Aldous Huxley wrote a screen play and Ginger Rogers recorded an album of songs, showing just how much this novel struck a chord with society at the time. However, it wasn’t until Mary Blair came along that the film took off.
Mary's tour of South America during the late 1940s was the catalyst to get the project moving again. Bold, bright and surreal the art of colonial areas influenced the final style and look of Alice. It was a change of pace for Mary who went on to design the look and feel of Cinderella and Peter Pan. But this distorted perspective and jolly colours have remained dominate in Disney's output even in recent times with Up and MONSTERS Inc.
But the most exciting part of the production story is about the Mad Hatter's tea party.
During the animation process, it’s not uncommon for the studio to film sections with actors to inspire the artists. The famous ‘tea party’ scene featured celebrated 'vaudeville' actor Ed Wynn as the Hatter. His talent for improv was so good, that from that scene they directly used his audio track, never needing to recorded his voice again. Moreover, his impulsive, spontaneous live performance was duplicated scene for scene by the animator’s pencils.
After watching this I thought of how much influence its had on cinema since. Forgive me if this is tenuous, but even with David Lynch. In particular, the moment Alice starts to explain what her mad world is, there’s a flickering moment in the river when we’re transported to Wonderland, yet it looks exactly like the real world. If anyone’s seen Mulholland Drive, then you might know what I mean. There's a seamless switch between real/ unreal which is not dissimilar to Alice...
Bridesmaids
So after much anticipation I finally got to watch SNL stalwart, Kristen Wiig's new film, Bridesmaids. Now, the risk with any film which manages to secure that much column space before it's release date, is that I feel I've already seen it before I get through the screen door. Sadly, this film fell into that category.
Now, I agree with all the reviewers and commentators (there was a LOT of talk about how women can be funny and how gender is not comedy specific). Yeah. Absolutely right. There were definitely jokes in there only the women in the audience would have appreciated (the 'adult sleepovers', the married 'hands off but get in' approach to romance) and some that I'm pretty sure only appealed to male sensibilities (the now notorious dress shopping scene).
Okay, I didn't wet myself, (mainly because I don't love gross out comedies), but I most definitely did LOL. The scenes at the engagement party were good ("you don't have a husband") as was the first class performance by sleaze ball John Hamm ("you're no longer my number three!").
However, having just been a bridesmaid, and judging this solely on the film poster, I thought there'd be a lot more about the whole wedding build up between the women and the absurd rituals of pre-marriage in America (rehearsal dinners anyone? it's not hard to eat a meal correctly). The bitchy cat fighting, dress shopping, present buying and getting in front of the camera hoo-har was saved for the two rival BFFs which was a shame, as the other female characters were pretty dyanmic.
I did like the nice twist on the 'traditional' romcom format, with the three female central characters fulfilling the role of love triangle. Namely, the old couple have been together for years, one finds a new interest and changes personality, they break up, but the damsel in distress is saved by the original and best.
But, that meant the sub-plot with the Irish copper from the IT crowd didn't necessarily seem that neccessary. I did like that he was a really 'normal' guy. If Jake Gyllenhaal turned up that would have taken the biscuit (not that I would have blamed Kirstin Wiig adding him to the script).
Over all a pretty good romcom, enjoyable and filled with sniggers if not belly laughs.
3.5 out of 5
Now, I agree with all the reviewers and commentators (there was a LOT of talk about how women can be funny and how gender is not comedy specific). Yeah. Absolutely right. There were definitely jokes in there only the women in the audience would have appreciated (the 'adult sleepovers', the married 'hands off but get in' approach to romance) and some that I'm pretty sure only appealed to male sensibilities (the now notorious dress shopping scene).
Okay, I didn't wet myself, (mainly because I don't love gross out comedies), but I most definitely did LOL. The scenes at the engagement party were good ("you don't have a husband") as was the first class performance by sleaze ball John Hamm ("you're no longer my number three!").
However, having just been a bridesmaid, and judging this solely on the film poster, I thought there'd be a lot more about the whole wedding build up between the women and the absurd rituals of pre-marriage in America (rehearsal dinners anyone? it's not hard to eat a meal correctly). The bitchy cat fighting, dress shopping, present buying and getting in front of the camera hoo-har was saved for the two rival BFFs which was a shame, as the other female characters were pretty dyanmic.
I did like the nice twist on the 'traditional' romcom format, with the three female central characters fulfilling the role of love triangle. Namely, the old couple have been together for years, one finds a new interest and changes personality, they break up, but the damsel in distress is saved by the original and best.
But, that meant the sub-plot with the Irish copper from the IT crowd didn't necessarily seem that neccessary. I did like that he was a really 'normal' guy. If Jake Gyllenhaal turned up that would have taken the biscuit (not that I would have blamed Kirstin Wiig adding him to the script).
Over all a pretty good romcom, enjoyable and filled with sniggers if not belly laughs.
3.5 out of 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






