Change Your Image
ozymandiaskingofkings
My interests are films, politics (especially left-wing politics) and philosophy (so I understandably avoid the politics and philosophy boards like the plague). Apart from movies I like to read, go to the pub, listen to classic rock music and completely fail to write fiction.
My favourite film genre is horror, though I love Sci-fi too. To be honest there isn't any genre that I dislike. I'll give most films a try if they pique my interest.
I like cats.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Badly made, badly acted and about as scary as a boy scout camping trip.
It's not often I say this, but i hate this film. It's a boring, badly written, badly made piece of crap posing as an arty verite style film, and has it's status purely due to hype and clever marketing gimmickry. Most of the action is plot less, just some morons bumbling round some woods. I mean, I used to go camping in woods with my dad all the time, it's not an especially scary environment for me. Plus: it's some damn woods, not the Amazon jungle. There's bound to be other people there and it's not exactly going to be hard to find your way out. It's just not believable. And most of the film is just them lost in some woods, it's not exciting, it's just something that happens thats inconvenient. It's like making a horror film about missing a bus, or something.
Unlike films such as Deliverance or Eden Lake, I never actually felt the protagonists were in any actual danger. Sure the odd creepy thing happens, but apart from the end (which I admit was great) scary stuff is few and far between and as for the documentary aspect, surely the point of a documentary is you shoot the interesting/relevant stuff. Their rationale for continuing to film was nowhere near as persuasive as the one in REC.
I guess the main reason I didn't like the film was that I really didn't care about any of the characters. Heather just spent all her time whining/crying, whereas the two guys had almost no personality at all. I really wasn't bothered what happened to them. And there just wasn't enough to hold my interest, the ideas ran out as soon as they entered the woods. Not enough happened to sustain my interest and given the film was only 80 minutes long, thats really saying something. It felt to me like a film school short that had been expanded to me, rather than a fully rounded film.
A good comparison is The Evil Dead where the direction and camera work served to create tension. In Blair Witch is looks in parts like they just ran aimlessly round some woods with a camera, while in Raimi's film the camera also prowls around and snakes along the ground, but it serves a purpose in doing so, offering a perspective of the entity that haunts the woods. In Blair Witch, the trouble isn't subtlety, it's that we don't see ANYTHING remotely frightening, not even glimpsed.
It isn't like Rosemary's Baby where the questions of what is supernatural and what is just coincidence/imagination pervade throughout the film but are finally resolved, there is a frustrating lack of closure. Sure, you could say it's just being left open to interpretation, but there are so few clues/pieces of information in the film with which the audience can gain any understanding, I just see it as sloppy writing. It started brilliantly, the interviews with the townspeople seemingly foreshadowing a much better film which ultimately never materialises, but doesn't build on that. I don't want to see a lot of hokey special effects of anything, but I did expect to see more horrific things happening than just three irritating people walking round a wood for what felt like forever.
I don't expect people to go watch clichéd slashers and remakes. I hate those movies too. But there are a great many better horror films out there than this one and it mystifies me why this one was singled out for so much acclaim. OK, so the 90s being a rubbish overall decade for horror probably helped Blair Witch and the verite style is cool to begin with, but the whole thing is underplotted and thinks it's much smarter than it is. It substitutes incoherence for a plot and screaming/bickering for intelligent dialogue and effective character development. This film is sort of like the emperor with no clothes. Everyone is told of it's brilliance, and people follow suit without really stepping back and looking how it works as a film, as a narrative work or a genre piece. The truth is, it doesn't work well as either.
The Invention of Lying (2009)
A good idea wasted. Not anywhere near as good as it should have been
Ricky Gervais is one of the most talented comedians working today, yet despite creating two of the greatest sitcoms of all time and being great at stand up, he seems to have hit a major stumbling block when it comes to films. So far he has been very cautious with his film roles, taking very populist and commercial films rather than more edgy ones. This has been fine, but with his own film I expected something more intelligent, more grown up, with the same spiky pathos of his TV work, and I was sorely disappointed. This isn't to say "The Invention of Lying" isn't a good movie, it is, but it is also an average one, a cosy mildly amusing romantic comedy that raises a few chuckles, but is neither hilarious, nor particularly ground breaking. The biggest problem with it is that the high concept of the film is not used as cleverly or richly as it could have been.
For those who don't know, the film is set in an alternate world in which mankind has never evolved the ability to lie, and so feel compelled to tell the truth at all times regardless of how insulting, insensitive or brutally honest that truth may be. There are certain problems with this, but I'll come to that later. Anyway, we follow Mark Bellison, a chubby loser with an unfulfilling job who is in love with Anna MacDougles (the delectable Jennifer Garner), a beautiful socialite who likes him, but tells him quite frankly, she's totally out of his league. One day however, Mark discovers that he can lie, which gives him his one advantage as he works out he can say effectively anything and have people believe it unquestioningly. He uses this ability to become successful in hope of wooing Anna.
OK, so I'll start with the positives. The first half of the film is great as our narrative world is established, the whole truth concept done really well. This is a world in which there is no fiction, the only films are lectures about history; adverts are brutally honest ("Drink Coke: It's brown sugary water!") and when you ask someone how they are, they actually tell you. For example, Mark's secretary Shelley (played by the always great Tina Fey) is quite open about her contempt for him. This is all very clever and very fast moving, but then halfway through the movie takes a wrong turn, when Mark inadvertently invents religion.
This could have been satire gold, but after an amusing start (writing commandments on pizza boxes and coming out with them like Moses) it's hastily ditched to the background and the film never really recovers. Because it has tried something so epic, the film can't return to just clever little gags and so stops being funny altogether, transforming into a not very interesting romantic comedy. All we get is a few smirks for our money, when I wanted side splitting humour. It is also very disappointing in the lack of ambition with the planned "truth world". Thinking about other alternate world comedies, such as Woody Allen's "Sleeper" or Mike Judge's massively underrated "Idiocracy", they squeeze every laugh they can out of their concept and detail their worlds into totally believable landscapes. Here there are a few things, but a lot of it doesn't make sense when you think it through. For one thing, in the scene with Ed Norton's corrupt cop, how does that make any sense without him being able to deceive? And what about the history of this world? From what we see of lecture films, it has remained the same, but surely in an entirely truthful world history, politics, culture would be very different? And the very fact the film was in parts boring enough to let me think this is in itself a flaw.
The other problem is that the humour is mostly very basic and broad. Truthfulness should lead to all kinds of embarrassing situations, but here that is only touched on and instead we just get Gervais being called "fat" over and over again. It's barely funny the first time. That's the other problem with the film. Everyone is honest, but here that translates to also being shallow, everyone is obsessed with looks and genetics and attractiveness in a partner. But surely admitting that someone isn't good looking wouldn't necessarily preclude attraction to them. People do genuinely love people for their personalities and sense of humour as well. That isn't a lie, yet here looks seem to be all that matters to anyone. It doesn't work.
As for performances, everyone is fine, but all we get are stereotypes with no depth whatsoever. Garner is an airhead who learns to see inner beauty, Rob Lowe is a smarmy boss, Tina Fey a sarcy secretary- none of these characters break beyond more than one dimension. As for Gervais, he is starting to look very limited in his acting skills, replaying the same tired archetypes. He plays essentially exactly the same character in this film as he did in "Extras", "Stardust" and "Ghost Town", a character that is essentially himself. The character like the film is cosy, likable, but not very interesting.
Sure, there are the odd hilarious scenes, and the film starts off great, but it seems afraid to be as edgy as it could be falling back on safe populist material. Even the religious satire is completely toothless. Gervais seems afraid to offend, which given his stand-up and TV work, pretty much paralyses his ability to do anything funny. This is a film made for the broadest, blandest possible audience. It's nice, it's cosy, it's feel-good. But it isn't funny, original or anywhere near as brilliant as it could be, and until Gervais takes a leaf out of Sasha Baron Cohen's book and stops worrying about offending people and audience figures, he will not succeed in creating the masterpiece that he undoubtedly is capable of.
Halloween (2007)
Better than expected, but still a bit of a mess.
As a huge fan of Carpenter's original, I was dreading Zombie's remake, but to some extent I was pleasantly surprised. Sure, it's no masterpiece, but it's significantly better both than I anticipated and than most critics said it was.
Really, Zombie's Halloween is a game of two halves. The first 45 minutes act as almost a prequel to the original film, showing Michael's childhood, and the period between him killing his family and his escape from Smith's Grove sanitarium in which he is being treated by psychologist Dr Loomis. The second half is far more pedestrian and is essentially a retread of the original film.
Of these, it is the first half which is by far the more interesting of the two. I know Zombie has been much criticised for his decision to demystify Michael and his attempt to explain his previously intangible evil, but I actually feel that these scenes are very effective. True, giving Michael a redneck breadline background (complete with an abusive stepfather) is completely misjudged and less terrifying than the originals hint that his family was quite normal and middle class, but in truth Myers evil still isn't explained. The scenes of Michael at school, victimised by bullies and causing problems for teachers also don't work really well and the original murder isn't handled well at all, especially compared to Carpenter's brilliant first person perspective.
What follows this however is far more interesting, as the film follows Michael's time at the asylum, filling us in on the 15 years glossed over in the original film. Especially interesting is the depiction of Michael's relationship with his psychologist Dr Loomis (played here by Malcolm McDowell), as we witness not only Michael's gradual degeneration from angel faced boy to mask obsessed mute, but also Loomis' transformation from concerned and compassionate therapist to a figure unhinged by his obsessive need to comprehend Michael's evil (slowly shifting more into the character as played by Donald Pleasance in the original series. These scenes are effective, restrained and, in the scenes with Michael's mother visiting, poignant.
The problems with the film start as soon as the second half, the remake element, begins, as Zombie begins to basically just retread the original, and fails badly at it. Not only is the film far too similar to Carpenter's masterpiece to be an effective film in its own right, and Zombie for some reason keeps intentionally reminding us of the superior original, using lines from Carpenter's original screenplay and even retaining the iconic score.
In essence all he produces is a 'highlights' film, missing out all the slowly ratcheting tension and more psychological scenes of the original and just going for a not particularly gripping stab-a-Thorn, significantly upping the gore, but losing much of the terror and edginess of Carpenter's film. As a result, characters are significantly cut down, and whereas the original had plenty of scenes between the horror which let us get to know Laurie and her friends and actually care about them, here they are simply underdeveloped knife fodder. Laurie is fine but her friends are impossible to give a damn about. The acting among the teen part of the cast is also very variable. Scout Taylor Compton is pretty good and quite likable as Laurie, but the others never really break their characters beyond 1 dimension (though to be fair Zombie doesn't give them much to work with).
Malcolm McDowell steals the film though. His interpretation of Sam Loomis is less Pleasance's unhinged harbinger of doom and more a believable liberal academic trying to comprehend Michael's evil, but trying not to lose hope. It's a fine performance, but the problem is this interpretation lacks the urgent mania that Pleasance brought to the role and, as more of a friend to Michael than a nemesis, it's harder to root for him.
Visually the film is impressive, with effective cinematography, set design and lighting but Zombies direction is far less so. He gives the impression of a man who knows nothing about tension, throwing plenty of shock and gore at the screen, but little subtlety or suspense. Zombie's film is far seedier than the original, highlighting the sex and violence and giving us much less character development, making it very hard to care. He also stuffs the film with unlikeable white trash caricatures, from Michael's stepfather to a bunch of rapist orderlies at the asylum, none of whom ring true and who belong in a completely different film. It's unnecessary, bringing too much of a scummy exploitation feel to the film and not enough of the lean, classy, intelligent horror which was the mark of the original.
The trouble is, for the most part, the film is a brainless retread, and a pointless one at that, missing out important scenes, inserting redundant ones and trying to recreate some scenes shot for shot, while lacking any of the flair, innovation or suspense that Carpenter demonstrated. It feels like watching a tribute band performing your favourite song rather than the real thing, and the tone is totally wrong, bringing in more seedy nastiness but less plot or purpose.
Predictably, its nowhere near as frightening as the original, or for that matter, for all its gory pretensions as visceral and shocking as Rosethal's underrated Halloween II. Sure, it's better than parts 4-6, and never does anything as ludicrously awful as 5's crying Michael or 6's incomprehensible Cult of Thorn storyline, but it's still totally redundant, doing nothing new, scary or interesting.
It's not an awful film, and is worth checking out for a slasher fan, but if you're anything like me, after you see it you'll immediately dig out the Carpenter version to see how it should really be done.
Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)
By far the best of the series
With Extinction, the Resident Evil franchise sees a huge shift in gear from the previous two instalments. While RE and REA were action movies riffing off "Aliens" and "Dawn of the Dead" respectively, this is far more pessimistic, more ambitious and, in all senses, better.
Extinction, unlike the quasi-faithful Apocalypse, takes a huge departure from the games that are its source material, re-imagining the series as a post-apocalyptic sci-fi/horror, perhaps best described as a hybrid of "The Road Warrior", Romero's "Day of the Dead" and Richard Matheson's classic horror novel "I Am Legend", as we are shown a scorched world overrun with zombies and populated by only a few survivors, though isn't quite as effective as it's progenitors.
Essentially, the film follows two parallel narratives which ultimately connect at the film's finale. The first one is a basic Mad Max affair, as Claire Redfield (Ali Larter) leads a ragtag convoy of survivors across America in search of sanctuary from the undead hoards, meeting Jovovich's telekinetic super-soldier Alice along the way. The second, which is in many ways far more interesting, follows the work of Umbrella scientist Dr Isaacs (Iain Glenn) as he labours in an underground bunker to domesticate the zombies in search of an eventual cure (a storyline lifted almost wholesale from "Day of the Dead"). There is also a subplot involving the shadowy Albert Wesker, a fan favourite character who seems to be directing things from behind the scenes, but doesn't really have much to do (though is set up as the next film's big bad).
Technically speaking, the film is light years ahead of the last two. For one thing it is helmed by "Highlander" director Russell Mulcahy, who, despite a dubious resume is a far better action director than Alexander Witt or Paul Anderson and also brings with him a far more mature, impressive, eye for images. Sure, Anderson is pretty good at claustrophobic horror (well, variable. Event Horizon was fantastic, RE good, AVP atrocious) but less skilled at this kind of epic scope, so Mulcahy seems a good choice and conjures some effective George Miller-esquire set pieces.
In terms of cinematography and editing, the film also outstrips its prequels, especially its immediate predecessor, creating an effective feeling of tension while brilliantly conveying the twin worlds of the film: the scorching, death choked and sun-blasted deserts and the clammy, clinical world of the scientists. There are also some truly wonderful moments: an attack on the convoy by T-virus infected crows, the crumbling ruins of Vegas, Isaacs attempting to teach a zombie using kids toys and, best of all, his transformation into one of the games iconic "Tyrants" for a thrilling climax.
The acting is far more variable. Milla is once again great as the now iconic Alice, while Iain Glen is sublime as the sinister antagonist Dr Isaacs. Ali Larter should also be praised, as while her Claire Redfield has nothing in common with her game counterpart, she is suitably feisty and charismatic to convince as a hero for the survivors (though the question of what happened to Jill Redfield is never answered).
There are some character problems. The rest of the supporting cast are 1-dimensional, and attempts to give them Whedon-esquire quirks don't always come off, making it difficult to care about their survival. The storyline is also sometimes muddled, and Alice's development of telekinetic powers is handled very badly, coming across as little more than a deus ex machina. Albert Wesker is also miscast, appearing more as a cocky American executive rather than the calculating and charismatic English mercenary beloved by the fans, though there is still time to sort this out in the sequel (or possibly recast).
Overall this is a very good action sci-fi film in the Terminator/Mad Max molds and marks a real positive improvement from the last entry. Stylish, exciting and visually impressive, this is a great popcorn film, and I eagerly await the next instalment.
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
Starts off great, then goes horribly wrong.
I was one of those people who really didn't like Paul WS Anderson's original "Resident Evil" film for several reasons. I thought it was too stylised, not scary enough, and that it had no respect for the source material whatsoever. I was also kind of sore that Anderson and his awful script had been chosen over the vastly superior Romero script.
To start with, the film seems far more impressive than the first one, with a plot that is not only more ambitious, but much more like that of the games. In REA, the T-virus outbreak has reached epidemic levels, spreading throughout Racoon City and turning much of the populace into flesh eating zombies. The plot itself is predominantly drawn from Resident Evil 3, following STARS babe Jill Valentine (accompanied by Alice from the first film) and special ops grunt Carlos Oliviera as they try to outrun mutant killing machine Nemesis, although the lost child subplot from RE2 is also included (sadly, Leon Kennedy isn't).
At first, this film's reputation as the worst of the Resident Evil films seems unwarranted. The first 2/3 are excellent, action packed, survival horror with a lot of nods to the games and some real standout scenes (especially the extended action sequence in an abandoned church, where it emerges the priest has been feeding his "sick" sister). There are some impressive visuals, some effective gore and lots of hot chicks kicking arse.
Then at the last 1/3 of the film everything goes to hell in a handcart, any semblance of horror thrown out and replaced with brainless, incoherent, heavily clichéd CGI action in which Alice fist fights with Nemesis, and ultimately leading to a scene so unspeakably awful that it negates the whole film, as Nemesis is revealed to be Alice's ex-boyfriend and then, realising his feelings for her, joins the side of the heroes.
The acting could best be described as variable. Milla Jovovich is great as Alice and Sienna Guillory nails Jill Valentine so well she could have just stepped out of the game. The rest of the cast are less than impressive. Oded Fehr is wooden as a Spruce as Oliviera, while Mike Epps' LJ is essentially little more than a racist stereotype. The direction is also something of a mess. The camera is all over the place, the editing is sloppy and there is way too much fake looking CGI.
All in all, it makes for frustrating viewing. Unlike the first film, it does attempt to do the games some kind of justice and follow a canonical plot and I really wanted to like it for that. The trouble is, while it starts off great, it loses focus before the end and just panders to the ADH brigade, degenerating into a popcorn action flick. I personally prefer it to the original. Is it a better film technically speaking? No.
Outland (1981)
Gritty and brutal sci-fi thriller
Peter Hyams' impeccable space Western "Outland" can be seen as one of the key films in a cycle of 'blue collar' science-fiction films which Hollywood put out in the late 70s and early 80s. Coming between the grimy space-trucker feel of "Alien" and sci-fi thrillers such as "Blade Runner" or "The Terminator", "Outland" is effectively a cop movie in space, at once looking backwards to 70s cop films and forwards to films like "Total Recall".
The plot is basic, a sort of variance of "High Noon", in which world weary Sean Connery is the one good cop investigating a series of mysterious deaths on the corrupt mining moon of Io. When he treads on the toes of the evil capitalists running the Jupiter Mining Corporation, they hire a group of assassins to take him out and, with everyone around him fleeing, he is left to stand against them alone. There's a brilliant feeling of economy to the narrative and while derivative, it grips like a vice and thunders towards its climax.
Visually, the film is absolutely stunning to look at, the humid and grimy mines, stark white med decks, embryonic red sleeping quarters and seedy workers clubs all utterly believable and meticulously detailed. The cinematography and set design are truly wonderful, and the design of everything from the spacesuits to the greenhouses seem to have been brilliantly designed. It is certainly one of the best looking science fiction films of its time.
The acting is, likewise, excellent. The ever dependable Connery gives a wonderful portrait of a reluctant hero, his world weariness masking a subtle sense of morality and nobility, while Peter Boyle is suitably sinister as his nemesis, the slimy company boss who cares more about profits than workers. Also worthy of praise is James Sikking who is fantastic as Montone, Connery's morally ambiguous right hand man who finally stops being corrupt, only to come to a sticky end.
Overall, the film is far better than it's popular reputation: tense, exciting, entertaining and visually stunning. A sci-fi thriller which isn't afraid to say that even in space, we are still the problem, and an underrated sci-fi gem.
Donkey Punch (2008)
Very mediocre
Much as I'd love to be able to endorse "Donkey punch" as a great example of British horror, I'm afraid that apart from the odd scene, I found it about as thrilling as an episode of "Countdown". Essentially, the plot is a hybrid of Danny Boyle's "Shallow Grave" and the black comedy "Very Bad Things", as a bunch of randy teens go out on a boat and one of them ends up dead following the titular sex act. After that, were strictly in Lord of the Flies territory with the gormless teens turning on, then killing, each other.
Frankly, it's as boring as it sounds. The acting is average, the setting recycled from "Dead Calm", the script formulaic and the characters so one dimensional that you don't remotely care about any of them, or whether they live or die. It's never explained why a brainless uber-chav is on a boat with three public school students either.
The cinematography and direction are competent, but nothing better. Overall, a massive disappointment and a very average, very forgettable film.
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Tarantino's best film to date!
Say what you will about Quentin Tarantino as a filmmaker, you have to admit that he is never less than surprising. After the boring, self-indulgent tedium of "Death Proof", one of the least thrilling thrillers ever made, and the entertaining but woefully uneven "Kill Bill", I had pretty much completely written off Tarantino as a filmmaker whose ego had got the better of him, and who just kept pumping out the same old nonsense. With "Inglourious Basterds", however, Tarantino has totally redeemed himself, and has produced what is possibly his finest film to date.
It has been a long time coming. IB, originally pitched as a "Where Eagles Dare" style boys-own picture, has been predicted more times than the end of the world and looked for some time to be stuck in development hell, so it is surprising that now that film has finally emerged that it is well worth waiting for, and is a much more focused, deeper and more disciplined film than any he has produced since "Pulp Fiction", all the while retaining the same dark wit and postmodern playfulness that has become his trademark.
The film is, however, far from the simple action movie that it was originally pitched as, the different chapters containing a myriad of different themes, tones and even sub-genres, creating in essence a meta-analysis of not only the war, but the war film genre itself. In fact, there are effectively three different parts to the film which come together at the end: 1) the "Dirty Dozen" style story of the Basterds, a group of American GIs tasked with killing Nazis to put fear into them, 2) A "Valkyrie" style resistance story and 3) a story of a Jewish farm girl seeking vengeance for the death of her parents.
Of these it is the last one, the story of Melanie Laurent's Shosanna, that is central to the film, as all 3 plot strands come to a head in her cinema at the premier of a new Nazi propaganda film. This section, and that featuring the resistance, are most similar in terms of style and tone to Verhoevan's excellent "Black Book", bombastic while at the same time gripping and, in parts, moving.
The structure, with separate chapters loosely interlinked is familiar from Tarantino's previous films, yet in this one are arranged chronologically, with a more straightforward sense of narrative. The chapters differ somewhat, each has its own style, from the slow, tense opening in which the Nazi antagonist Col Landa interrogates a farmer, to the wordy Reservoir Dogs style resistance section, before coming together for an action packed finale. Its on the whole a more serious film than his previous work, but is shot through with black comedy and trademark playfulness (look out for Hugo Stiglitz, a character greeted with a burst of electric guitar and a massively OTT flashback).
The performances are all excellent, though the greatest acclaim must go to Christoph Waltz as charming but evil Nazi Landa, surely this years standout villain and a sure-thing for an Oscar. Also fantastic are Laurent, who is utterly mesmerising as Shosanna, and Michael Fassbender as the British spy caught out in the middle section.
The same stylistic flourishes found in all Tarantino films, such as eccentric characters and idiosyncratic music, are still present, though seem far more appropriate here than ever before. His use of David Bowie in one of the later scenes is truly stunning.
Now, a brief word of warning. This isn't a piece of history, it is a work of absolute fiction, a fairy tale with a wartime setting, and as such should be regarded with a degree of open mindedness. Those wanting to see the next "Saving Pt Ryan" shall be disappointed. However, those wanting to be entertained and willing to approach this as a work of fiction, will find a film that is gripping, funny and thrilling in equal measure. Tarantino has made a war movie that practically blows the genre apart at the seams. And it is utterly fantastic.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Easily the best of the series
Up till this point, I was always vaguely dissatisfied with the Harry Potter films, feeling that they failed to adequately represent the source material. They either cut out important bits, left in unimportant bits or were just badly paced or filled with mawkish sentiment. The directors chosen to helm previous instalments were a mixed bag. Alfonso Cuaron's darkly Gothic "Prisoner of Azkaban" was, till now, the best of the bunch, mixing a brilliant cinematic sensibility with great storytelling, while the others were a mixed back. Mike Newell's "Goblet of Fire" was very slick, but also very soulless, a SFX buffet sans wit, while Chris Columbus first two films are nigh on unwatchable, full of terrible dialogue and mawkish, cheesy sentimentality.
With David Yates however, the unexpected choice for "Order of the Phoenix" off the back of the brilliant BBC thriller "State of Play", the series really hit it's stride, with Yates bringing a sense of realism and peril (largely absent in the previous 4) to the series and stripping down most of the tedious whimsical stuff that slowed down the films and instead crafting two rather brilliant fantasy thrillers. "Order of the Phoenix" may not have been perfect, but it was certainly better than the book (my least favourite, too long, poorly focused and, with the exception of the ending, rather dull) and it is my absolute pleasure to say that "Half-Blood Prince" is pretty much perfect, the books dark tone and horror/thriller elements matching Yates' style like hand in glove.
The visual style and direction are quite astounding, a curious mix of State of Play style realism and Tim Burton-esquire expressionism, the bleached aesthetic giving an ever present feeling of dread and menace previously absent from the films. The muted rain drenched opening, with Harry blinded flashbulbs straight after his Ministry battle looks like something out of a 40s crime thriller, but the scene directly after, in which London is attacked by a group of death eaters brings us straight back to reality, a post 9/11 vibe permeating this scene and the whole film with Voldemort's evil now targeted at Muggle civilians and, ultimately, Hogwarts. There is no safety to the magical world anymore, it is now a place of death and destruction.
Misery and Gothicism are piled on in the atmospheric mise-en-scene, from Tom Riddle's nightmarish Dickensian childhood in a crumbling orphanage, to the bombed out ruins of Diagon Alley and the scenes in Snape's house on a grim Northern terraced street, the sweetness and light of the earlier films has totally gone, the ever present threat of the Death Eaters handing like a cloud over the whole film. Voldemort doesn't appear, but his reach is felt everywhere, maniacal agents like Bellatrix Lestrange and Fenrir Greyback acting with Al Qaeda like fanaticism against the Dark Lord's enemies.
The acting is, as usual, excellent. Regulars such as Gambon and Rickman become pivotal to the plot and completely shine, while newcomer Jim Broadbent is a joy to behold as eccentric new teacher Horace Slughorn, all cynicism and rambling anecdotes. The show-stealer though is Helena Bonham-Carter returning as Bellatrix Lestrange, filling the character with childlike hyperactivity, Gothic sensuality and outright insanity during the end assault on Hogwarts.
As for the students, they are on the whole fantastic. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are both very funny as Ron and Hermione, experiencing unwanted attention from admirers, while Radcliffe inhabits the character of Potter so much that, however weak his acting may be, it is impossible to imagine anyone else playing the character. Special mentions must also go out to Evanna Lynch, utterly enchanting as the eccentric Luna Lovegood and Jessie Cave, who is wonderfully soppy as Ron's unshakable love interest Lavender Brown.
Without a shadow of a doubt, this is the best Potter film to date, tense, focused, brilliantly shot and directed, and filled with excellent performances. I eagerly await the final films as, with Yates, the franchise has never been in better hands.
Reeker (2005)
Definitely not your average slasher film....
Dave Payne's "Reeker" is a far better film than it looks on the surface. Marketed badly as a formulaic teen slasher, "Reeker" is actually one of the better low budget horror films of recent years, and possesses a rare intelligence for a genre picture. It doesn't entirely avoid the realms of cliché, but there are enough fresh and interesting ideas in there to make it worth a watch even for genre fans like myself.
The plot on the surface is simple, a group of friends run out of gas in the desert and come to a deserted blood-splattered motel where they decide to rest for the night. Plagued by troubling visions of mutilated motel guests and drawn into the enigmas which surround the hotel, such as the mysterious scribblings on the wall of an empty room and what exactly happened to oddball amnesiac trucker Michael Ironside's missing wife, they eventually realise that a sinister foul-smelling apparition is stalking them. The film is perhaps closest to Identity, with elements of the genre classic Carnival of Souls, a slightly surreal combination of Hills Have Eyes style desert stalk-and-slash and Cube style existential mystery. I won't tell you the solution, but you'll never see it coming.
The characters are all extremely convincing and well-acted by a cast of almost unknowns, the standout being Devon Gummersall as Jack, the rare example of a blind character who isn't just a hindrance to the other characters, but in fact the one who first cottons on to whats happening. The other characters are fine as well though, and are largely much more convincing than the usual sex-obsessed airheads which populate most horror films.
It is also worth commenting on the cinematography and Payne's direction, both of which are excellent. The motel set is meticulously realised and very convincing, while the colour scheme is low key and subtly sinister, all sickly yellows and coppery reds, while the Reeker is a truly nightmarish revenant that is unique among horror villains. Especially effective is the way visual tricks, such as camera distortions and shadows, are used to convey the none-visual phenomena of a terrible smell which accompanies the decaying murderer, tricks we recognise soon and immediately look out for as an indication of future horror.
I expected little from this film and instead it blew me away. An intelligent, gory and well made little horror with a killer sting in the tail.
7/10
Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973)
Flawed but brilliant exercise in pure Romanticism
Mad Sam Peckinpah's "Pat Garrett" is quite unlike any Western that I have ever seen. Unlike the violent and cynical treatment he gave the genre with "The Wild Bunch" and the brutal brilliance of "Straw Dogs", my two previous encounters with his work, PG+BK is a much more laconic, relaxed, and in some ways sentimental, look at many of the same themes (specifically the death of the old west).
There is very little plot to speak of, we know that erstwhile friends Pat and Billy are heading for conflict and are shown in a series of almost disjointed scenes, Billy's various crimes and Garrett's reluctant role as lawman building up to this conflict. Overall though, the feeling isn't so much one of a coherent whole but of a series of captured instances, like a series of engravings or landscape paintings, depicting a particular moment in time that is now lost forever.
The film is quite stunningly beautiful to look at, brilliantly shot and framed, using light and colour like a Turner painting, all red blood and golden sunsets against bleached sands. This isn't a film you are intensely gripped by, you sit back and absorb it, like a painting or a piece of music. It is in a way, a true work of art, where everything is implicit and the key to enjoyment isn't harsh scrutiny, but just letting it wash over you.
The performances, while the casting may be unconventional, are excellent. James Coburn is reliably grizzled as the world weary Garrett, but it is Kris Kristofferson as Billy the Kid who is most impressive. Much criticism has been given to the casting of an older actor as the young outlaw, but this is actually beneficial to the film as instead of merely being presented with the reality, a sociopathic young punk who shot all is victims in the back (though there is some of that in the film's portrayal), we also see elements of the legend, with Kristofferson imbuing the character with a kind of battered charisma, of wounded heroism, a pathos which underlies much of his bravado.
Bob Dylan, also much attacked at the time of release, is also absolutely fine as the mysterious Alias, and effectively acts as a Greek chorus, his beautiful, lyrical folk soundtrack adding meaning to the sumptuous cinematography. To describe the film as being like a visual Dylan album is entirely justified, the scenes and the music perfectly complimenting each other throughout.
The film isn't without it's flaws, as a piece of narrative cinema it doesn't work and it is often an incoherent and disjointed film, but it's shot through with brilliant moments, scenes of tenderness, scenes of pathos, scenes of brutality, and as a purely aesthetic work it is a triumph comparable with the works of Kubrick or Mallick, or, in the Western genre, John Ford. Peckinpah presents an altogether different meditation on the death of the old west to The Wild Bunch, less dark requiem as heartfelt eulogy, an exercise in pure Romanticism, revelling in the quiet and serene beauty of the Western landscape and the simple truths of the natural aesthetic.
Breathtakingly beautiful, a flawed but brilliant and completely unique contribution to the genre.
9/10
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Disappointment with a side of racism
This should have been so good. I love Transformers, I like Michael bay films, I thought the first film was great. What could possibly go wrong? Well, as it happens, a hell of a lot. ROTF labours under the false pretence that more is more, so rather than taking time to set up a complex and (for a Bay film at least) intelligent story as the first film did, this film just presents us with a mixture of massive explosions, cynical fan-boy box ticking (such as a blink-and-you-miss-it sideswipe cameo) and, worst of all, casual racism. Before I address this specifically, I'll start with the few positives.
The film looks great, some of the set pieces are jaw-dropping and Shia LaBouf, Megan Fox and John Turturro all do very well with severely underwritten roles. There are some fan favourites that work great as well. Devestator, is all his constructicon glory, is jaw-dropping, while Soundwave and Ravage's infiltration of a government laboratory is heart poundingly exciting. Jetfire's reinvention as a cranky old war vet is inspired, though not all purists may see it that way. And the climatic battle between the autobots and decepticons which culminates in the destruction of the great pyramid is awesome. Fan favourites from the last film are also given a little more to do this time around. Megatron and Starscream bicker like they do in the cartoon and Ironhide gets to kick a lot of ass. The problems come with the new additions to the cast.
Lets start with The Fallen shall we? Trailers made him look totally evil, a massive teleporting rogue agent which the autobots and decepticons have to team up to defeat. Not so, The Fallen is actually a rubbish, less charismatic, replacement for Megatron with a moronic plan to destroy the sun. He doesn't appear in the film that much and when he does you find yourself wondering why Megatron doesn't just rip him apart. He's the weakest link in what is a completely uninspired plot, a formulaic chase for a McGuffin called the "matrix of leadership".
However, The Fallen is merely disappointing whereas two new additions called The Twins are just really offensive. First of all, with their Ghetto accents, Ape-like builds and big gold teeth, they are racial stereotypes so extreme they make Jar Jar Binks look like an accurate representation of Jamaican culture. They also use the words "bitch", "pussy" and "ass" frequently in what is meant to be a kids movie. Why the hell they were included is a mystery, but for some reason someone somewhere decided Transformers, a SCI-FI ACTION film, needed more comic relief. So we get dogs humping, Sam's mum high on weed, a pervy robot trying to shag Megan Fox's leg and numerous other cringeingly unfunny Adam Sandler esquire moments that slow down the film and just don't belong here.
There is also a lot more sexual content than the last film, and while I myself enjoy the sight of Megan Fox straddling a motorcycle and running on slow-motion, I wouldn't have spent more time focusing on it than the plot. There is also a seen where a decepticon disguised as a cheerleader makes out with Sam wearing only a thong. Yes, you did just read that sentence.
Now, the sex and the swearing is fine, but this is a film based on a kids cartoon and kids toys, and I really don't feel great about kids watching a tirade of casual racism/sexism.
In fact, I don't know how to rate this film at all. The last Transformers film I loved, gave a 9/10. This one was good in parts, the ending was brilliant but the build up was boring, and staggered with misjudged comedy and inappropriately Un-PC humour. And even the geekgasms awarded by Starscream, Ravage and Devestator cannot undo the sheer hate I feel for the twins.
Brüno (2009)
Shocking, outrageous, hilarious
I'm going to get lynched for this, but I didn't think Borat was as amazing as everyone else seemed to. It was funny sure, but decidedly hit and miss overall. Borat was hardly more than a caricature designed for satire, to elicit stupid responses from stupid, ignorant people. I couldn't help but feel the Borat segments on Ali G, where it was confined to 10 minute skits worked far better. With Bruno though, these problems have been dealt with, and not only is the film consistently hilarious, but Bruno himself, while still a caricature, is a far more believable and likable character than Borat so from the off it's easier to get into the character, care about the story and laugh at his unbelievable ignorance.
We follow Bruno, a self-obsessed, vacuous, and screamingly camp fashionista who presents Funkyzeit, Austria's top (fictional) fashion show. When he is fired for a mishap involving a Velcro jumpsuit, he heads to America in search of fame and fortune trying increasingly ambitious things, from developing a chat show pilot to solving the Middle East peace problem. In the process, he manages to offend pretty much everyone from the predictable (Bible bashing cretins) to the genuinely dangerous (terrorist leaders). If there is one thing you can say about Sacha Baron Cohen is that the guy has balls of steel, willing to do pretty much anything and mock pretty much anyone to get a laugh.
The film begins with a deliberately outrageous gay sex scene and if you flinch there you're out as it only gets more extreme from then on. I won't give away any of the gags like other reviewers, but look out for where he is planning a baby photoshoot, your jaw will be on the floor. It goes without saying that if you're easily offended you should avoid this film, but if you like your humour tasteless with a slice of satire, it's definitely worth checking out. Weirdly, it is worth mentioning that there is also a subtly touching love story at the heart of Bruno, with his hapless PA Lutz constantly supporting him when all else criticise. This gives the film a heart which was sadly missing from Borat and gives the film another dimension.
Overall, by no means a great work of cinema in the technical or narrative senses, but nevertheless really bloody funny.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
should be retitled: The Tedious Case of Benjamin Button
After many months of intending to go see this film, but never really finding a convenient time, I finally got around to seeing it and was crushingly, woefully, disappointed. In fact, I haven't felt so let down by the promise of a film since the advent of the Star Wars prequels (well, maybe Indy IV). It's really a bit of a mess of a film, a curate's egg really that has good bits in it, but is ultimately too long, poorly structured and badly paced. I couldn't help but think it should be renamed "The Tedious Case of Benjamin Button", as regrettably it commits what to me is the cardinal sin for a film, that for all its interesting touches, it's ultimately boring and, to be honest, not as original or intelligent as it thinks it is.
The plot, for those who don't know, is a simple one. We follow the eponymous Benjamin (Brad Pitt), a man who is born as an old man and slowly ages in reverse, experiencing the 20th Century through his eyes, with the focus being on his inevitably doomed love affair with Cate Blanchett's Daisy, the normal ageing love of his life.
The problem with this, on paper promising, idea is that it is basically squandered. The backwards ageing provides only a few moments of poignancy, the rest of the time it is either played for laughs or ignored altogether in favour of what is to be honest a straightforward linear narrative about life and love. The main problem is that conveying the 20th century through the eyes of one man and the girl he loves has been done before, and better, with "Forrest Gump", and this film lacks the wit, charm, or pace of Zemeckis' film.
There are some good things, the acting is on the whole excellent, especially from Pitt who is startlingly convincing as the curiously afflicted Benjamin, and Blanchett as his soul mate the beautiful Daisy. Plaudits also should go to the always excellent Tilda Swinton, as the repressed wife of an English diplomat who Benjamin falls for while working on a fishing boat in Russia.
Visually the film is also stunning, though sometimes the aesthetic is too extreme. The cold of Russia and the bleak rain splattered streets of New York are presented well, but the scenes of Button's home in New Orleans where he grows up are shot in such a mellow pallet of yellows, and have such a cheesy family atmosphere, you almost expects someone to come in with a packet of Werther's Originals to hand round.
The scenes that are of interest are often peculiar vignettes detaching from the story, and while fascinating, such as the story of the blind clockmaker making a clock that only goes backwards following his sons death, or the sequence showing the many small cause and effect chains which lead to a major accident, the use of a hummingbird as a psycho-pomp, ultimately come across as just cynical attempts to make the film appear deeper than it actually is, recalling the similar opening of "Magnolia", but without the intelligent relevance.
The only truly outstanding scene is one in which the fishing boat on which Button works is attacked by a German U-Boat in WW2, and is forced to fight back. But even that moment of action underpins the meandering slowness of the rest of the film. Bluntly put, the film is way too long, and feels it. Around the 2 hour mark, you suddenly become very aware that there is much more left and that it could be done much quicker.
Another problem is with the films structure, particularly the framing device which has an elderly, dying Blanchett getting her daughter to read Benjamin's Diary, which then becomes his narration. It seems clumsy and unnecessary, especially as any time we are getting drawn in by Benjamin, we get dragged out into a series of repetitive mother/daughter conversations between the two. Also, the main emotional reveal of these scenes is massively underplayed and the daughter is given so little characterisation, it is almost impossible to feel empathy, or even care that her mother is dying, when the relationship could be much more poignant.
Blanchett as an old woman is also incredibly irritating, her reminiscences of lost love and her life when she was younger at best schmaltzy and at worst sanctimonious, comparable to the old woman in Titanic in both expositionary function, and irritating personality. This isn't her fault though as much as bad writing, but she does typify the problem. Only Pitt and Swinton are given juicy parts, Blanchett is essentially just there to look gorgeous (which of course she does) whereas a massive cast of supporting characters barely break into two dimensions (least of all the hard-drinking Irish captain he goes to work for- stereotypes ahoy!).
Ultimately, the central love story is sweet, but padded far too much, while an interesting premise is largely ignored or unexplored, as if it was only there for occasional comic relief. Its a frustrating, badly structured film that away from the media circus, isn't really anything special. Its worth watching if its on TV sometime, but if you go out of your way to see it, you'll be quite disappointed. It does have its moments, but it was vastly overrated on its release.
American Psycho (2000)
Bale IS Bateman
I recently got this on DVD and felt that it was worth reviewing as, although I had seen the film before, it was a long time ago and I feel that I basically missed the point of the whole thing, concentrating on the serial killer aspect and not fully appreciating the more sophisticated vein of black comedy beneath it.
Don't get me wrong, the film is gloriously bloody and violent, with several scenes of brutal and shocking murder, but in actuality this is a far more complex film, mixing elements of social satire, pitch black comedy and existential drama.
Set in the latter years of the 80s, the film follows Patrick Bateman, a handsome, successful and intelligent 20 something, who is nevertheless a thoroughly unpleasant individual. Bateman is a yuppie who has pretty much everything that most people (not me, but as far as I'm aware the average person) aspire for: lots of money, a nice apartment and a beautiful, if a little dim, fiancé (played by the delightful Reese Witherspoon as charmingly stupid), yet he is ultimately a totally shallow, empty individual, with no real taste or passion, living an utterly unfulfilling life which he is only able to fill by committing horrendous murders. His only passions are incredibly inane, and though he offers opinions on politics, morality etc, he ultimately cares only about having the most stylish business card or eating at the best restaurant.
What is fascinating about the film is that while Bateman is initially utterly unlikeable, coming across from the outset as narcissistic, shallow and hypocritical, he is no simple Gordon Gecko style monster and, strange as it seems, as Bateman goes off the rails and slides into homicidal insanity, he becomes more likable and more human, until we are almost on his side. Of course, crucial to the success of the film is that Bateman is a comic creation as well as a horrific one, often trying to confess his murders to those who don't listen ("I like to dissect girls, Do you know I'm utterly insane?" he offers to one disinterested character) and giving lengthy monologues on 80s music shortly before committing his crimes.
Of course, much of the praise for making Bateman such a fascinating figure should rest at the feet of Christian Bale, and despite a fantastic supporting cast, it is ultimately his film. Interestingly, his Bateman, a slick popular businessman who is all carefully constructed image, but in reality is violent and disturbed, seems to eerily predict his reading of Bruce Wayne in Chris Nolan's Batman films, though of course, Bateman channels his angst and wrath in much less healthy ways Visually, the film is extremely impressive, a world of clinical, immaculate apartments, affluent nightclubs and soulless offices presented in stunning blandness, while the murders are colourful and shockingly choreographed, often the only scenes of intrigue or vibrancy. The problem with this is that it leaves the film open to accusations of 'style over substance', and initially the film appears to mirror its protagonist; great to look at, and extremely cool, but ultimately soulless. However, this is all flipped in a final act which has us questioning all we have seen so far.
Comparisons have been made with "Fight Club", but these are wide of the mark as it is neither as subversive, nor as effective as Fincher's movie. Bateman doesn't really change or learn anything as the film goes on and he film doesn't have the rich subtext of "Fight Club", often falling back on just laughing at the idiocy of yuppies. However, the emphasis on murder as something to bring emotion and meaning to life is fascinating, and in some ways echoes Camus' "The Outsider", and while not entirely successful or clear in its message, it is still a funny, shocking and intelligent film, anchored by an amazing central performance from Christian Bale.
Zodiac (2007)
Magnificent!
With the release of "Zodiac", David Fincher's second foray into serial killer territory after the magnificent "Seven", many eagerly attempted to compare the two, but in reality, they are very different beasts. "Seven" was a deeply claustrophobic movie, set in dark buildings under a perpetual night, offering only the limited perspective of the detectives as they tried to solve a horrific series of crimes over a very short period of time, whereas "Zodiac" is almost the opposite, appearing undeniably agoraphobic, a sprawling and almost holistic view of an unsolved crime encompassing a massive timescale, a large cast of central characters and a much more complex and Byzantine plot, encompassing not only the case, but the context and culture in which it occurred.
The storyline is, on paper, deceptively simple. A serial killer with a penchant for sending codes and clues to the authorities is at work in 70s San Francisco, while the cops and a group of journalists from the Chronicle (who each received his letters) try to uncover his identity. When the search is fruitless and the murders stop, the cops give up the case, while crime reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr), by now an alcoholic obsessive, is fired from the Chronicle. So far, so historical.
However, most of the film takes place in the decade following this as Avery's friend Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), the Chronicle's cartoonist, cracks the cypher and begins his own investigation to find Zodiac's identity and finally lay the case to rest. It is here that the film spirals into a complex tapestry of red herrings, conjecture and clues as we follow his obsessive and at times haphazard search for the killer that keeps turning up results, but is ultimately far from conclusive. Suspects that seem almost certain to be the killer are discounted whereas others are accused based on a hunch until we reach a point where the plausible and the tenuous become blurred and we are never entirely sure what is true and what is mere paranoia. In some ways, the structure and scope of the film resembles Stone's "JFK" (though obviously less polemical) throwing lots of theories at the screen but not conforming to a single one.
Visually, the film is stunning, evoking not only an effective representation of a particular place in a particular time ('70s San Francisco) but also many of the classic thrillers of this period such as "Klute", "All the President's Men" and, particularly, "Dirty Harry", a film that was inspired by the Zodiac killings and one which is explicitly referenced in one scene. There is also a certain amount of realism to the proceedings, murders as likely to happen at a daylight picnic on a beautiful day as in the more traditional locale of lovers' lane, and as much attention is paid to police bureaucracy and the personal and social lives of the characters as to the murder case.
In a way, the focus is taken away from the killer, who is almost a faceless quasi-mythological figure, and placed upon those hunting him instead, and it is a testament to the talents of the cast that characters which could easily become clichéd archetypes (the obsessive amateur, the alcoholic but brilliant writer, the dogged cops) are genuinely believable, complex, well-rounded figures who are flawed yet genuinely sympathetic.
I must stress that this is a film that really requires concentration and probably more than one viewing to appreciate the complexity of the central case. If you're friends or family talk through films, don't watch it with them, otherwise you'll miss stuff and won't know what the hell is going on/who people are etc. However, though the film is complex it is certainly rewarding and, while the fact that whatever theory the protagonist grasps crumbles may seem frustrating, it is in actuality enthralling, and Fincher's film is ultimately one that is as much about obsession as it is the mystery itself.
Forget the tedious, suspense-less "Panic Room", "Zodiac" is Fincher right back on form.
Outpost (2008)
OK but disappointing
It's weird, but for all my love of horror movies, I've never actually seen any of the 'classic' films with zombie Nazis. Part of this is probably because they're never on TV and I haven't seen them on DVD etc, and the other part is that the films themselves aren't actually meant to be very good (though I've heard good things about "Shock Waves" on the IMDb horror board, one of my regular haunts, and it has got Peter Cushing in it, so it's likely I'll check it out at some point). However, the idea of nazi zombies is a marvellous concept that perfectly treads the line between sublime and ridiculous. Someone at some point must have been tasked with thinking of a way to make Nazis seem even more evil, watched too much Romero, and gone "hang on lads, I've got a great idea
" and for some curious reason, the trend has come back, not just with this film, but also with the upcoming "Dead Snow" (which boasts possibly my favourite tagline of recent years: "Ein! Zwei! Die!").
Of course, the idea can still be seen here and there. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is full of Nazi occultism, James Herbert's rather brilliant novel "The Spear" contains a zombie Himmler, id Software's "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" was full of undead Nazi villains and Mike Mignola's "Hellboy" series has a number of recurrent undead Nazi scientists meddling with 'that-which-man-was-never-meant-to-know' (brought brilliantly to life by Guillermo Del Toro), but there hasn't been a good zombie nazi horror for ages. Until "Outpost".
As you might have guessed, I really wanted to like this film, not just because it's an old-fashioned no frills horror movie, but because it's a British film that isn't a Richard Curtis style rom-com (don't get me wrong, I love Richard Curtis, but I wish there were a few more Neil Marshalls out there too). Obviously, I was quite disappointed. The film isn't dreadful or anything, in fact it's pretty good in parts, but it's nowhere near as good as it should have been.
The main problem seems to be one of pacing, with the film seemingly split into two halves: the first atmospheric, tense, claustrophobic, putting one in mind of the recent underrated British thriller "The Bunker" (about a bunch of Nazis slowly going crazy while holed up in, you guessed it, a bunker), the second is gory, violent and action based, and unfortunately, is more akin to "Alien vs. Predator". This means that anything of interest is effectively dispensed with and plot is replaced by sloppily edited action, dissipating any tension whatsoever. It's a real shame, as up to that point, the film is reasonably creepy and atmospheric and it feels as though someone just came and said "not enough action", forcing them to up the violence at the expense of suspense.
The plot is a simple one, a shifty guy in a bar hires Ray Stevenson and his band of mercenaries to help him capture an old Nazi bunker somewhere in a war-torn Eastern European country, for reasons that he isn't forthcoming with. Once there, the team are fired upon by (presumably) separatist forces, and are forced to hide in the bunker. Inside they find a pile of corpses with a single, mute, survivor, some mysterious scientific equipment and a lot of Nazi regalia. Weird stuff ensues and it seems the bunker isn't quite as deserted as it first appears. It's a pretty solid plot, not very original, but intriguing and interesting all the same.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the characters, who are on the whole a 1-dimensional bunch whose personalities are pretty much determined by their nationalities (crazy Russian, gung-ho redneck, treacherous English guy etc.) and we only really get to know about 3 of them. In fact I'm really racking my brain trying to think of who rounded out the team and I really can't: Dirty Dozen they ain't. Ray Stevenson is very good as the leader, but there are two main problems with him: firstly he's playing basically the same character he played in "Rome" (i.e. a career soldier with a love of war but a fierce loyalty to his friends) and secondly, he eclipses what one feels would have worked better as an ensemble team. We get no real feeling of camaraderie, or indeed, back-story to the squad despite the few scenes that are obviously included purely to give that impression. Only Stevenson and Julian Wadham, as the duplicitous man who hired the squad, create any sense of complexity to the characters.
There are some good aspects to the film, visually the thing looks fantastic and the set design is impressive, but the direction is at best pedestrian and at worst poor, and once the violence begins it is hard to tell what's going on, who has been killed etc. It's also all over very quickly when a stalk and slash approach would probably have suited the film better.
Overall, the film is mostly entertaining, but is ultimately disappointing. However, if you fancy a decent horror to watch with your mates over a few beers, you could do much worse. As for me, I'm holding out for "Dead Snow".
Watchmen (2009)
A different sort of superhero film
To say that Watchmen is a film that I have anticipated for a long time would be a bit of an understatement. I, like many others, am an enormous fan of the graphic novel and was extremely conflicted about the prospect of a big screen adaptation: excited about it finally happening and deeply worried that whichever director eventually got the gig would screw it up.
There were two main concerns about the adaptation: that it would miss a lot of detail out that was in the novel and that some of the roles had been miscast. Neither of these are true, and in terms of transplanting the novel to the screen it's brilliant, very faithful, visually perfect and clearly the work of someone who respects the material as much as I do. There are a few niggles which I will come to in a while, but mostly everything is almost spot on.
For those who have been living in a cave for the last year, Watchmen is set in an alternative 1985 where Nixon is still president, the world is on the brink of thermonuclear war and costumed heroes have been outlawed. When one of these heroes The Comedian is outlawed, Rorschach (who refused to turn himself in) contacts his former colleagues and they begin investigating the murder, stumbling upon a vast conspiracy to assassinate former heroes in the process .
The main thing that should be stressed is that the central performances are, on the whole, excellent. Jack Earl Haley is an absolute revelation as Rorschach, a psychopathic vigilante with a warped sense of absolutist morality. He's practically Travis Bickle in a mask, complete with bitter misanthropic voice-over and misplaced sense of nobility. Also especially excellent is Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian, an amoral mercenary who had been employed by the government to carry out black ops. Imagine if Captain America was a symbol not of freedom, but of American imperialism and you're halfway there. The Comedian is in theory a totally reprehensible character, selfish, violent, sexist etc, so it is a tribute to Morgan that he ultimately becomes sympathetic.
Rounding out the Crimebusters are Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and Ozymandias. Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl is doomed to be overshadowed by the larger characters played by Morgan and Haley, but deserves just as much recognition as the other two. He really nails the character of Dan Dryberg, a nerdy, slightly overweight loser who longs to be a hero again. Dryberg is much more Clark Kent than superman, a slightly awkward, but noble character, who is probably the only character in the film who comes across as both normal and likable.
Malin Akerman's Silk Spectre is regrettably the weakest link. She's very attractive and looks great in the costume, but she's not a very good actress and doesn't really convince on any of her line readings. Also, in the key emotional scenes where Carla Gugino plays her mother (the first Slik Spectre) she isn't very believable and all you think is that Gugino is a much better actress.
Finally, we have Matthew Goode as Ozymandias, in many ways the hardest of the characters to portray as he is meant to be basically perfect: hyper intelligent, very athletic and confident without being arrogant. Goode's casting was widely criticised before the film was released but to be honest, he does a pretty fine job. He definitely looks the part, and while I don't necessarily agree with his affected accent or quite how aloof he portrayed Adrian, it is to his credit that I still felt I was watching the character rather than an actor and if anything, my frustration was that there weren't enough scenes to properly establish Veidt as there could have been.
Visually, the film is stunning, and is very close to the graphic novel bringing all the stunning aspects (Manhatten's crystal Mars palace, Karnak, the Comedian's death) to life. The sets, direction and cinematography are all wonderful realisations of Gibbon's artwork while the action sequences are actually in many cases better than the book, especially the assassination of The Comedian, the attempted hit on Ozymandias and the whole last act in Karnak.
But by far the best part of the film is the opening credits. Now, I know that sounds like an insult, but it isn't, as Snyder presents us with a visual history of superheroes in the watchmen universe from the foundation of the first heroes in 1940 to 1985 when the story takes place. This sequence is a montage of beautiful slow motion images that are almost like moving photographs, a shimmering 50s style gleam standing against the darkness of what the images actually mean, all scored to Dylan's "the times they are a-changing". It's a brilliant combination of myth and history and condenses almost all the novels back-story fantastically, which allows the rest of the film to concentrate on the main plot without interruption or digression.
So, what are the problems with Watchmen? Well, the main one was actually prophesied by Alan Moore. Whereas in the comic you could flip back to a previous page if you were confused about something, the film is pretty fast moving and while those who have read the book will have no problem following the labyrinthine plot, newbies to Watchmen may be confused, especially about some of the things on the periphery which aren't really explained, such as why the heroes were outlawed and the nature of Bubastis (Ozymandias' genetically engineered pet lynx). The first 3/4 are pretty much perfect, but the end is handled a little too quickly and is potentially confusing.
Overall though, it's a very faithful, fantastically realised adaptation of an incredible novel. If you are a fan anyway, you'll probably love it. If not, still an amazing experience, but probably worth investing in the novel too.
I really look forward to the extended cut on DVD.
[Rec] (2007)
One of the greatest horror films ever made
Every so often a film comes along that I buy on impulse, having heard very little about, and it really takes you by surprise. The Spanish horror film REC*, is one such movie. I was vaguely aware of it having been remade in the US to fairly negative reviews, but bought it just on the strength of IMDb recommendation (i'm a horror board regular).
In some ways, the trick REC has up its sleeve, mimicking documentary footage, is nothing new, dating back to "Cannibal Holocaust" and more recently being used in films such as the "Blair Witch" and "Cloverfield". It is however, far more successful than either of these. "Blair Witch" I won't go into, its boring, pointless, pretentious twaddle thats about as scary as "Winnie the Pooh". "Cloverfield" I actually loved, but it is mainly sci-fi rather than horror and it fails for two main reasons: firstly, it is too polished, no home video even at the best of times is as clear, coherent, or relevant as what we are presented with.
Also, while offering little explanation, way too much was shown of the monster and as the protagonists ran from tower block to subway, to army base, to shops etc, I couldn't help but feel way too much ground was being covered. In order for something such as that to be gripping, it has to be claustrophobic and paranoid- just look at Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" for a great example on how it should be done: one man, with a narrow mission (get to Boston) experiencing bewildering chaos. REC understands that confusion, paranoia and claustrophobia are the key ingredients of any successful horror and the taut plot and verite style reflect this.
The film follows a local TV reporter making a documentary following a group of firemen over a single day. The opening 15-20 Min's effectively set up the film as a straight documentary, complete with bloopers, intros, retakes etc. Its effective, we get to care about the characters quickly without the need for a lot of exposition as allows the film to get straight on with the story. The firemen get a call from the police to an apartment building, details are sketchy, but an old woman was heard screaming and they can't break into her flat. Once the fire crew break in, it is clear that something is wrong with the woman as she attacks one of the cops. The firemen decide to evacuate the building, when it emerges that it has been quarantined for unknown reasons. Then all hell breaks loose.
Those who have seen either Romero's classic trilogy or Danny Boyle's excellent "28 Days Later" will pick up pretty soon on what the nature of the 'infection' is, but the way in which the story is told, as much a Lord of the Flies character piece as a traditional zombie horror, is great.
Stylistically, it is so well done anything that seems clichéd is irrelevant, as we see a narrow and claustrophobic view of the horror, compounded with genuine shocks, subtle implied nasties, and balls out adrenaline fuelled carnage, as the likable reporter tries to first document the confusion of what is happening, then explain it, before finally attempting escape. It also feels very convincing, the use of none actors adding to a convincing verite feel.
The film also knows the meaning of narrative economy, proceeding like a juggernaut to its horrific conclusion as genuine terror and impeccable suspense marry to create a very intense and nail-biting film, that, like Romero, isn't afraid to follow the story to its logical conclusion.
Rec is probably the best horror film since "The Descent" and I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Quantum of Solace (2008)
A worthy sequel, but not without it's faults...
I only saw this a few weeks ago when i bought the DVD on impulse. It's taken me a while mainly because I thought there was no way it could match the standard set by "Casino Royale". Royale was a brilliant thriller, elegant, intelligent and tense with a serious tone matched only by the first two Connery films and Tim Dalton's stint. This wasn't camp and, I'll say it, rubbish Bond of the Moore years (and *shudder* Die Another Day) this was Bond of the novels, cynical, brutal and perhaps a touch Sociopathic, while Eva Green was as intelligent as she was stunning, offering a nice change to the usual airhead that Bond shags and leaves.
Now I'll be honest, "Quantum" isn't as good as Royale (and, lets get this out the way, has the worst title of any film I can think of) but that isn't so important as it is a very different type of film, shifting the focus from character and psychological suspense to balls out action and paranoia. In some ways, it is a return to the excesses of old Bond, with big set pieces, millionaire villains (I swear at one point someone says "One Billion Dollars!!!") and incomprehensible global conspiracies, though anchoring the film is a more realistic tone of Bond's heartbreak and desire for revenge over the death of Vespa. Like Connery at the start of "Diamonds Are Forever" when he's tracking Blofeld for killing Tracy, Bond is royally brassed off and wants some answers dammit.
The main strengths of the film lie in its cinematography, a searing visual style that is both gritty and dirty while highlighting spectacular action (explosions, car crashes etc), while the direction and script are incredibly kinetic. This is a focused and fast moving Juggernaut of a film with Bond on the warpath as he unleashes hell on those who killed Vespa and, at the start of the film, attempt to assassinate M.
The problem is, its a little too focused. It is very successful in giving us a better sense of Bond as a character and his complex, at times amoral approach to life, but this comes at a heavy cost to the plot and the other characters; which is a real shame as there is a sense of a genuine attempt by the writers to deal with complex themes such as the moral ambiguity of diplomacy and the politicisation of the intelligence services in the 21t Century.
However, the way this is done, with Bond going rogue from MI6 to avoid diplomatic problems, is basically the same as the plot of the (underrated) Dalton film "License to Kill". Actually, its basically a carbon copy, right down to the revenge element and the South American baddies posing as philanthropists. The only difference is an attempt to introduce more politics, but the result is just baffling as the wide ranging plot is neither explored or explained adequately.
I mean, as far as I can tell, the story is this: A French billionaire philanthropist is orchestrating a military coup in Bolivia, while arranging to secretly gain control of Bolivia's water supply, for some reason. What this reason is is never really explained. Or indeed what the Quantum organisation is, what its aims are etc. It's all just a bit of a mess.
The characters are one dimensional. The villain, Dominic Green, is a stereotypical slimy Frenchman, the military dictator could have walked in out of a Tintin comic and poor Olga Kurylenko is given little to do except pout. Yes, she's absolutely gorgeous, but she's given so little personality and so little to do by the writers (except be angry and vengeful) that she is relegated just to the role of Bond's sidekick.
Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton), Bond's other conquest in the movie, is also a pretty ghastly cliché of a character, reminding me of Caroline in Goldeneye, and her death, which should be the emotional keystone of the whole piece as Bond realises that he can't get close to anyone without hurting them, is just glossed over, then forgotten about.
This is partially the fault of Marc Foster, the director, who understates the plot to the point where we just don't care. Why the studio didn't ask Martin Campbell, director of "Casino Royale" and the excellent "Goldeneye" again, is beyond me. After all, he also directed "Edge of Darkness" a TV environmental conspiracy thriller which would have made him perfect to deal with Quantum's Byzantine plot.
Now, don't get me wrong, the film looks great, is very entertaining, and has some great set pieces (the exploding hotel at the end is the standout). But it lacks both the brains and the plotting of it's predecessor and, while still better than the majority of Bond films, feels like a relapse into previous bad habits.
Star Trek (2009)
Star Trek is back. And it's awesome!
Saw this ages ago, sorry it's taken me so long to get a review up, but I've been doing my final exams (yay, I'm a graduand!). Anyway, I really enjoyed this film, it may lack the brains of traditional Trek, but it remained extremely entertaining nevertheless. I should point out foremost that while I am a fan of Sci-Fi, and of the original Star Trek, I'm not really a Trekkie, and have very little interest in The Next Generation. I got into the Original Series very recently. It was on late night BBC 2 last year and I got into watching it while pulling all night essay stints. I found it entertaining, liked the plots and the characters and found it vastly preferable to what I've seen of the bloated, moralistic and, frankly, boring subsequent series. I am not however, a purist (I am not an anorak on it as I am on classic "Doctor Who" for example) so can only comment in the loosest terms in regards to how a fan would receive it. If I had to guess though, I'd say that, a few quibbles aside, the fan should love this as much as a newcomer.
That really is the strength of this film. JJ Abrams somehow manages to strike a perfect balance between catering for the fans, and catering for blockbuster audiences who just want to see massive spaceships blowing stuff up. And he delivers with a vengeance, creating what is both an adrenaline fuelled action adventure and also a geeky nostalgia trip for those of us who have seen the classic series.
The plot is fairly simple prequel fare, following Jim Kirk from no good punk, through the Federation academy, to ensign under Christopher Pike and finally, the man thrust into command of the enterprise against the threat of a deranged Romulan's insidious plans to destroy the Federation. However, Abrams knows exactly what he is doing and, unlike the tepid "Wolverine", really fleshes out well known characters, rather than just delivering more of the same. He also cleverly adds a dimension of time-travel to the plot, meaning that on the sequels he can do whatever he likes without pissing off continuity nerds, its smart and somehow, doesn't feel like a cheat.
By far the most impressive aspect of the film is the cast. The acting talent on display here is terrific, balancing the difficult task of capturing the soul of the well known characters and fleshing them out, without falling into the trap of merely impersonating the original actors. They succeed admirably: Chris Pine captures Kirk's cockiness and Zachary Quinto is great as the hotheaded younger Spock, but the most plaudits must go to Karl Urban as Bones, who is so good, you'd swear they cloned DeForrest Kelly. The supporting cast is also very effective, with Bruce Greenwood's Captain Pike the standout, adding earthy notes and depth to a character previously relegated to a horrible accident on the TV show.
Visually the film is stunning, taking a leaf out of Star Wars book and hosting massive chaotic space battles, yet remaining much darker in tone. We are actually worried about these characters and care about them winning, especially after the unhinged Nero .... ah, well that would be telling.
Overall, the film is fast paced, witty and exciting, and I can honestly say it's one of the few films I've seen where everyone, male or female, old or young, walked out with a huge grin on their face. Take your friends or your family and you'll have an awesome time.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
Boring, predictable, pointless.
his was a film which something in my gut told me was going to be awful. I can't explain it. Call it what you will, instinct, a hunch, women's intuition, but I just wasn't looking forward to it. Maybe it's because I'm not a fan of prequels in general (seriously, name a good prequel. I dare you), maybe it's because I felt after Wolverine's origin was dealt with so well in "X-Men 2", or maybe it's just because Empire magazine had been building it up for months. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Empire fan, and find them generally reliable, but I wish they were occasionally less optimistic about upcoming films.
Don't get me wrong, I really wanted this to be good, but less that 30 minutes in I knew my fears were concerned. It feels muddled and redundant, telling us little we didn't already know about the character. It's a strange film in that it is almost completely brainless, yet has too many ideas going on. I'll try to clarify this: at the heart of the film is a very clichéd and revenge storyline, while in the occasional back-stories there is really interesting stuff that isn't explored at all. In the first 20 minutes or so, we see Wolverine participating in three major wars, any one of which would have made an interesting subject. All are glossed over, when a film concentrating solely upon Wolverine in 'Nam, or WW2, could be potentially fascinating.
Then, in the only interesting part of the film, Wolverine and Sabertooth (who's apparently his brother?!?) join a special forces team made up of really cool mutants like Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds, stealing the whole damn movie even though he's only in it for about a minute), Agent 0 and, Er, will.i.am from the Black Eyed Peas (no, I don't know what the hell they were thinking anyway). Again, there's a really interesting group dynamic here, and the film could have just focused on these guys, but its over with in a short scene.
Then its plodding nonsense with goodies (Wolverine, Gambit) and baddies (Stryker, Sabertooth), with slow motion walking-away-from-explosion shots, helicopters, and all the usual turgid action nonsense that looks like its wandered in from a Dolph Lungren film. The whole thing doesn't cohere at all, its a film where the writers have just gone: "wouldn't it be cool if..." made a list and got on with ticking stuff off. The scenes which should be emotional, like the death of Wolverine's wife, are handled poorly (including an unintentionally hilarious NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! moment) while a slow moment where Wolverine hides out on a farm with an elderly couple is just far too Norman Rockwell, like it's wandered in from a Superman film. Then the old couple get killed pointlessly just to make Wolverine angry again. It's all very cynical and exploitative on the part of the writers.
And these are just the beginning of the film's problems.
The main issue of the film, apart from the ever mounting number of visual and narrative clichés, is that it is inherently suspense-less. We know that Wolverine doesn't kill Sabretooth or Stryker because they're alive in the original series. We know that Wolverine is going to survive everything thrown at him for the same reason, and by putting the stress on his indestructible nature, we never really feel he is in peril. They're retreading the plot of X2, but nowhere near as well. At times, you wonder whether they've actually seen Singer's films, the whole thing seems so amateurish and poorly written (and indeeds, in the end scene completely ignores continuity). There isn't any of the depth or complexity of the proper films. Hell, this makes Brett Ratner's movie look like "The Dark Knight"!!! And it isn't just that. The whole film is just box ticking of fan favourites that producers thought would sell tickets, and nobody is more than one dimensional. Deadpool walks away with his head held high, and I look forwards to the spin off movie with him, but Gambit is very poorly done and the others, like Emma Frost or Blob, are just cameos that add nothing to the film.
The acting isn't especially great either. Jackman plays Wolverine with none of the sarcastic fury of the Singer movies, Taylor Kitsch is rubbish as Gambit and Danny Hudson as Stryker is about as menacing as a poodle. Why they couldn't have got the fantastic Brian Cox back completely baffles me. Only Liev Schreiber as Sabretooth is any good, and even then he isn't really given enough to work with.
Badly written, Badly acted, Badly directed and an insult to both fans and audiences. The worst film I've seen so far this year.
Crank: High Voltage (2009)
Hilarious, insane and utterly brilliant
OK, it may not be big, or particularly clever, but this is without a doubt one of the most entertaining and hilarious films I've ever seen, a relentless thrill ride that grabs hold of your attention and doesn't let go for 90 exhilarating minutes. The first film looks positively lethargic by comparison, as we are presented with a adrenaline fuelled cocktail of absurdist comedy, over the top re-workings of exploitation clichés and a relentless real-time pace.
The visual style is astounding, with the directors throwing a bizarre cornucopia of cinematographic techniques, non-sequitur moments of surrealism, frenetic editing and spot on cultural parodies. It's absolutely phenomenal, its ludicrously popcorn plot presented in jaw-dropping style, and though there may be little for the brain to enjoy, it's a treat for the eyes and is wonderfully hilarious, the humour raging from the ironic to the Un-PC to the offensive and all the way to surrealistic.
The films plot is simple. Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) have had his near indestructible heart stolen and replaced with an electronic artificial one. He must keep the heart charged through electrocuting himself regularly, all the while pursuing the gang that have his heart. And thats it. In terms of narrative economy, the film rattles along like a freight train. Chelios encounters a problem, he solves it, he meets another one, more absurd than the last. If you thought the first one was mental, then you haven't seen anything yet.
I will issue a brief caveat: If you are easily offended, don't see this film. There is a lot of sex, nudity, violence, swearing etc etc. If you aren't the kind of Daily Mail reading, Tunbridge Wells dwelling, Tory voting cretin that worries about that kind of stuff though, you should definitely go see this film, as its the perfect film to just distress and have a laugh to.
Jason Statham is terrific as usual, a charismatic hard-ass who you'd love to go for a pint with, while the gallery of oddball supporting characters (a guy with full body tourettes, Chev's eccentric doctor, a completely insane Chinese hooker, a variety of deranged gangsters) are hilarious.
Overall, it's not big, its not clever, but it is hilarious, entertaining and action packed. This is absolutely the perfect weekend film to watch with a bunch of mates. Arguably the best action comedy since Kung-Fu Hustle.
Tron (1982)
Like the Matrix, but with The Dude as neo...
Tron is one of the best films of the 80s. Fact. Never mind the smart Alec at the back telling you its nerdy and dated, or the small skit on the Simpsons which automatically made you (and I admit, me) think it was rubbish, Tron is an intelligent, groundbreaking movie that not only holds up incredibly well visually, but when viewed today, seems to foreshadow the Matrix to such an extent that the Wachowskis should hire a damn good lawyer when Disney notices. Obviously, it isn't as dark or as philosophical, its a fun sci-fi action film, but the fundamentals of plot and the main characters are very similar.
The film follows Flynn, a slacker computer programmer who was fired after his work was plagiarised by the hissable David Warner. He tries to hack into the computer to download the eponymous Tron, an antivirus software which will stop the powerful Master Control Programme from taking over the world. So far, so cheesy. However, when it goes wrong he is beamed into the computer and things get distinctly more interesting.
Flynn is now captured by computer game villains and force to compete in gladiatorial computer games he devised. After a while though he meets Tron. Tron is a chosen one who must get to the mainframe of the computer and upload a virus in order to stop the villainous computers. Along the way, Tron and Flynn meet an old man who was a remnant of the original programming and are pursued by one of the system's villainous agents. Sark, the villain could very easily be Agent Smith, with Tron as Neo, the old guy as the Oracle and Flynn as Morpheus, the huge chasms of difference in style between this and The Matrix masking very similar plot mechanics.
The acting in the film is mostly strong, with the standout cast members the always excellent Jeff Bridges (whose Flynn is almost a precursor to The Dude) and David warner doing the token English bad guy thing as Sark and his real world counterpart. The biggest strength is the visual effects though. You have NEVER seen a film like Tron before, wonderful neon landscapes stretching to infinity in the imaginary computer world. The funny thing is, while people mock, if you try to imagine living inside a computer world, Tron is unavoidably what you come up with.
So if you had trepidations about Tron in the past and are open for watching an entertaining, intelligent, exciting and visually stunning piece of work, I recommend you to seek it out.
End of Line
Dracula (1979)
A dark, sensual and brilliant version of a horror classic
I love Bram Stoker's "Dracula". Not only is it one of my favourite books, its one of the few classic horror novels that remains both gripping and scary. Over the years it has been adapted more times, directly or indirectly, than pretty much any other book, and I've seen most of them from the fantastic (Herzog's "Nosferatu") to the good but flawed (Coppolas version), the bloodily entertaining (most of Hammer's efforts) and the shockingly bad ("Blood for Dracula", "Dracula 2000" and "Blade Trinity" are the standouts here). In terms of my personal preference, I think Herzog's version of "Nosferatu" is my favourite (I far prefer it to the original), while my favourite Count is Christopher Lee.
It seems weird then that I've never seen this film, though that probably can be attributed to both the fact that it's hardly ever shown on TV, and the fact that reviews tend to emphasise the romantic aspects of the film, making it sound sufficiently like an Anne Rice novel for me to have very little interest in it. Actually, this appraisal is quite quite wrong, as Badham's film is as much about dark Gothic horror as it is about sex, much as Stoker's original novel is.
In fact, this is a very dark and full-blooded approach to the much recounted tale, which strips down the novel to its iconic bits then proceeds like a blood-drinking, throat-tearing juggernaut to its violent conclusion. Opening with the shipwreck of the Demeter in Whitby, sailors ripped to pieces by a mysterious evil as the storm lashes against them, inmates of Dr Seward's asylum screaming like wild animals and the sickly Mina (unaccountably swapped for Lucy) discovers a lone survivor, the rakish Count Dracula, on the beach. After recovering, the Count kills Mina, and then turns his attention to corrupting Lucy instead...
The film is romantic, but it is foremost a Gothic piece, a dark twisted tale in which love and death are intertwined, as much a kind of "Wuthering Heights" as a "Dracula". Moments of utmost grisly horror are dotted throughout, particularly when the vampire hunters encounter the hideous creature that Mina has become in the caves beneath the graveyard, or the final battle with the count.
It should be noted that the set design, direction and cinematography are excellent, from the cobweb caked ruins of Dracula's castle to the nightmare of Seward's asylum, Badham creates a nightmarish, almost Dickensian Victorian setting, which utilises some beautiful Cornish coastal landscape. (slightly puzzling to be honest, as its supposed to be Whitby and looks absolutely nothing like it. I'm curious why they didn't just shoot it in Whitby, especially as it is very proud of its Dracula connection and still looks creepy and Victorian). The cinematography is great as well, with some really lush Technicolour scenes that recall Terence Fisher's work for Hammer (which I would argue, is a clear aesthetic influence) but, because of the superior script and acting, it all comes off much better.
There are some liberties taken with the novel, such as confining the action to Whitby and trimming the number of characters, but that doesn't really matter as all the important elements are there, and the tone of the original work is totally nailed, with the contrasting Freudian and Jungian interpretations of Dracula as both a symbol of sex and death, and a symbol of rebirth given full development and exploration by the ambitious script.
The cast is also very good, Langella portrays the count as a kind of rakish figure who can alternate between sexy and sinister and probably is the best Dracula since Lee, while he is offered excellent support by Donald Pleasance as an oddball Dr Seward, Tony Haygarth as a brutish Renfield and Trevor Eve as an exasperated Jonathan Harker. Oddly, the weakest link in the cast is Olivier as Van Helsing, who puts on a stupid accent and hams it up atrociously.
Overall though, this is a terrific version of the oft recounted tale, suffusing rich Gothic imagery with a dark sensuality. Nosferatu aside, this is certainly the best adaptation of Dracula that I have seen.