Why I Love Existential Cinema

2014-09-14

Since commencing my formal film review blogging schedule I’ve noticed something about the types of film I’m drawn to. Okay, so primarily my interest is in science fiction, fantasy, action and horror with a dash of war for good measure, but what I’ve noticed is that much of what I have seen this year in particular can be given the “existential” tag. That is, films which explore what it means to exist, the human condition and the things that make us tick. The main component of this for me this year has been the films of Werner Herzog, which explore the human condition in exquisite detail, mostly by throwing the short tempered Klaus Kinski into an inhospitable setting and watching the sparks fly.

There are many more to existential cinema than this, of course, but the Herzog/Kinski relationship is one of the better examples. There are many other directors who explore the human condition without being quite as obvious about it. Stanley Kubrick has always had an eye for this kind of narrative, whether it be in the guise of science fiction in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the threat of nuclear armageddon in Dr Strangelove, or violence in society in A Clockwork Orange. He was also a very exacting director, insisting that the performances and choice of shot were perfect before moving on, and it’s this that helps define both his style and the existential aspect of the production. You learn a lot about your own opinions and perspectives on the world depending on who you find yourself rooting for, more so if you are able to provide a reasoned argument for doing so.

Other films recently have taken existential cinema to a new extreme by focusing on just one character for the entire film. Life of Pi and All is Lost do this by isolating their characters in the middle of the ocean and, while they go off in completely different directions, they still have the unified theme of studying the human condition and the lengths we will go to in order to survive extreme conditions.

You could argue that all of cinema has an element of existentialism to it. One of the main points of the medium is to provide a window into another world, usually by using a specific character as our viewpoint into that world. If the characters weren’t relatable in some fashion then the majority of the audience wouldn’t make the effort to see it and the human connection would be lost. It is through these characters and their interactions with others that leads us to consider the themes and message of the movie, whether one was intended or not. In some cases, such as the documentary Room 237, that attention to detail can go a little too far, but in the case of most films it’s easy to pick out a few themes, more if you take into account the time period in which it was made. Few would argue the case, but I consider Godzilla to be another example of existential cinema, embodying the fears of the Japanese people of nuclear destruction following World War 2.

I consider existential cinema to have several layers to it. On the very first level are those with blatant existential themes – the aforementioned Herzog/Kinski films and the likes of All is Lost. Then as you travel further down the layers you have the rest of cinema – the Godzillas, the Kubrick pantheon, and so on. All the way down at the bottom you’ll probably find Ed Wood’s Plan 9 From Outer Space and other films of a similar quality. While there may be obvious cultural existential links there, they’re often so bad it’s both difficult to pick out any existential themes, and more often than not a waste of your time.

Welcome To The Punch (2013)

2014-09-13

Twitter Plot Summary: A cop, McAvoy, has to join forces with the criminal, Strong, who shot him in the leg whilst dressed as Agent 47.

Five Point Summary:

1. Mark Strong for Agent 47? I can see that working.
2. Andrea Riseborough writing stuff on her hand. Tut tut.
3. Together, they are strong! Or something like that.
4. Tense Nan showdown.
5. Showdown at Punch 119.

Who would have thought that London could look this good, this stylish, with a bit of decent cinematography? What will strike you first about Welcome To The Punch is that London looks surprisingly good (in spite of the lack of noticeable London landmarks), and that the direction is also of the highest quality. It isn’t helped much by the almost constant blue filter over everything, but then you can’t have it all. Throw in a soundtrack with a pulsing electro beat and you have a British production that exudes style and a certain amount of sophistication. A clever use of slow motion sequences, and used sparingly, certainly do no harm.

The performances support this veneer of stylishness, even if the script doesn’t entirely live up to its initial premise. Yes, there is solid work from James McAvoy as the driven police officer and Mark Strong as the career criminal in his sights, and the supporting performances from Andrea Riseborough, David Morrissey and Peter Mullan (amongst others) are similarly excellent, enhancing the grittiness inside the stylish casing, but if you look too much beyond this you just have a story that does nothing you haven’t already seen before a number of times.

McAvoy and Strong make an unusual but solid pairing as two rivals from different sides of the crime barrier joining forces to take on what appears to be a bigger threat than the one they pose to each other. Their odd couple partnership, working towards the same goals despite operating from different sides of the law, proves to be the main reason for checking this film out. They bicker and argue over how they should do things, and ultimately discover that meeting somewhere in the middle will work out best. Despite their differences, they work hard to ensure their partnership is believable, if somewhat unrealistic.

The best way to threaten a little old lady, is by not directly threatening a little old lady.

There’s some fun to be had in working out who the real bad guys are in all of this outside of the McAvoy/Strong pairing, but you can guarantee without even going into spoilers that the police force aren’t all squeaky clean, and that things aren’t as black and white as it may appear on the surface. If there is an area in particular where the film falls short is in the villains aren’t anywhere nearly as well established as our two leads, resulting in a story that feels a little too one-sided, lacking a solid reason for following the chain of events. Andrea Riseborough’s Sarah threatens to be an interesting supporting character but subsequently is left with an expeditionary role that leads nowhere.

Mullan gets to play it from a few different angles, primarily as the long time friend of Mark Strong’s Jacob Sternwood. He’s one of only a few people who can get away with threatening a little old lady and still come across as a loveable rogue. This marks one of the strongest scenes and is surprisingly tense given its incredibly plain and normal setting. Other sequences involving a night club shootout and the final climactic showdown at Punch 119 up the style and loud noises to great effect.

So we end up back with the stylish London setting, a story that has been told a thousand times before, and some solid acting. On those grounds, Welcome To The Punch ticks enough boxes to be a worthwhile entry in the UK crime thriller genre, even if it is let down by a wafer thin plot. You can’t always have it all, though.

Score: 3.5/5

The Expendables 2 (2012)

Simon Prior

2014-09-12

Ee bahh gum, it be the Northern Expendables like!

Twitter Plot Summary: The Expendables journey to Eastern Europe to stop Jean Claude Van Damme, because it’s cheaper to film over there.

Five Point Summary:

1. Big explosive intro, then things quieten down. Get the flat caps out!
2. He’s dressed in black and wears shades. Clearly a bad guy.
3. Chuck Norris!
4. Schwarzenegger. Willis. Tiny car.
5. Obligatory fist fight to the death in an industrial setting.

The exercise in silliness continued in 2012’s The Expendables 2, with the titular team having to face off against Jean Claude Van Damme’s blatantly named villain called, er, Vilain. This is a man who comes from the classic, old school stock of bad guys, dressing all in black, always wearing shades and speaking in stunted soundbites as he plots to do something nefarious with a mine in Eastern Europe – a location chosen no doubt because it’s a cheap place to film in. Cue an intervention from The Expendables! On arriving in Eastern Europe the Expendables crew all don flat caps, as if they’re auditioning for The Expendables: Yorkshire Edition. Perhaps it’s best not to dwell on the possibility that this may one day happen.

This time round there is a now obligatory younger character who has joined the crew in the form of Liam Hemsworth (the one that isn’t Thor), although the more established names come and go in a cavalcade of increasingly brief cameos – Jet Li appears for at most five minutes. This time there is a little more for both Brice Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger to do, which is either a good or a bad thing depending on your perspective. Portraying Dolph Lundgren as a scientific genius is a highlight, more so because he’s actually a smart guy in reality. No, seriously, he has degrees and everything.

Despite all of that it all comes down to the bromance between Stallone and Statham, which picks up where it left off in the first film. Their interactions are the real selling point rather than the number of cameos from big name action stars, or the random woman who shows up to prove that this isn’t a massive testosterone contest – even though it is. How else could you explain the climactic fist fight between Stallone and Van Damme?

Could you tell he's the bad guy? Of course you could. — Could you tell he’s the bad guy? Of course you could.

Much like the original, this is a film that isn’t as knowingly self-referential as it needs to be. With the exception of Chuck Norris, who gets to use one of the better Chuck Norris facts as his character’s introduction, and the exchange of catchphrases between Schwarzenegger and Willis, the silliness never reaches the appropriate level. That’s not to say the action isn’t very good, because it’s confidently done. Everything in this respect is explosively good fun, well choreographed and giving the audience bang for its buck. The dialogue is amusing enough, but it’s never brave enough to jump over the fence and know that it’s amusing.

The real issue here is that it doesn’t come close to being as good as the 80s action movies it’s emulating, providing the big explosions and the big names, but not much else besides. Stallone should have taken more inspiration from his 2008 Rambo movie which did precisely what The Expendables has attempted and failed to do. It marks itself out as an occasionally entertaining action film with old-school sensibilities, but pales in comparison to the genre it pays homage to, and sadly pales against the modern action film genre, forever stuck between those two worlds and never being as good as either. Much like its predecessor, The Expendables 2 doesn’t become fully aware of its own silliness, but it does at least make some progress towards being self aware, like some primitive action-based version of Skynet.

Score: 2.5/5

The Other Woman (2014)

Simon Prior

2014-09-11

"Game of Thrones fans... I'm sorry. Here, have some wine and flowers." — “Game of Thrones fans… I’m sorry. Here, have some wine and flowers.”

Twitter Plot Summary: Three women discover the man they’re seeing has been cheating on them, so they seek revenge.

Five Point Summary:

1. Well that was awkward.
2. Nicky Minaj can’t open her jaw, apparently.
3. Kate Upton, clearly not cast because of her acting abilities.
4. Revenge plans kick in.
5. An amusing joke! And then the film ends.

It seems that writing films specifically for a female audience is an incredibly difficult process. With the exception of Bridesmaids a couple of years ago, it’s difficult to name any other films in recent years that have successfully nailed the formula and provided believable women in an entertaining setting. Despite its marketing campaign trying to prove otherwise, The Other Woman is a resounding failure, trying to portray women as strong and independent but instead making them out to be insecure and willing to forgive male indiscretions because they apparently can’t do better for themselves. They do of course realise that they can do better through a series of somewhat unbelievable plot contrivances, but it’s a long time in arriving.

It’s a story that stretches credulity in the first place, with Leslie Mann’s Kate discovering that her husband has been having an affair with Cameron Diaz’s Carly, and then both of them soon realise he’s also hooked up with Kate Upton’s Amber and, it turns out, many more women besides. Joining forces, the three of them hatch a plan to get revenge on Mark (Game of Thrones’ Nicholas Coster-Waldau) for his lying, cheating and stealing. The friendship between Kate and Carly does develop well despite the unusual circumstances which it begins under, and both Mann and Diaz are strong performers who invest in making this screen friendship work. This is perhaps the only positive point to draw, so let’s explore the negatives shall we?

The revenge aspect of the narrative – which you would expect to play the biggest role – doesn’t kick in until over an hour in, and before it has time to become something genuinely funny, we’re lumbered once again with female indecisiveness and yet more unnecessarily shrill conversations that lead to a cliche and all too convenient finale.

She realised far too late that her jaw had been wired shut.

Kate Upton has almost zero acting ability, so we should be grateful that the script gives her very little to do beyond smile and look good in a bikini. Similarly a brief cameo from Nicky Minaj as Carly’s receptionist is ruined by her jaw apparently being wired shut – she talks as if she’s a ventriloquist’s dummy who has been magically brought to life and given a film role.

What The Other Woman needs, beyond a page one rewrite, is its running time trimmed to a more manageable 90-100 minutes (comedies running beyond their natural limit is all Judd Apatow’s fault), a tighter focus and development of the female relationships, and more emphasis on seeking revenge for Mark’s infidelity. Surely they could have come up with some more entertaining methods of getting their own back beyond the three or four ideas we get to see?

A couple of half decent jokes aside, namely the trio discretely feeding Mark laxatives and oestrogen, and him constantly walking into clear glass walls thinking there’s nothing there, come far too late to save it from being a trainwreck, and a greater effort on introducing actual jokes in the first two acts would have gone a long way towards saving the production. In one scene Kate’s dog decides to relieve himself on the apartment floor. As far as critical commentary goes, his analysis of The Other Woman is spot on.

Score: 1/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDcaZ3StTfI

The Muppets (2011)

Simon Prior

2014-09-10

Miss Piggy's new life as a nudist came as quite a surprise. — Miss Piggy’s new life as a nudist came as quite a surprise.

Twitter Plot Summary: The Muppets return and, with Jason Segel’s help, reunite to fight off the evil Chris Cooper.

Five Point Summary:

1. Meet Walter. He’s new.
2. Gonzo’s doing surprisingly well for himself.
3. Are you a man or a muppet?
4. Smells Like Teen Spirit.
5. Mahna Mahna.

The Muppets had been moderately forgotten in the mainstream by the early noughties, despite the fact they hadn’t actually gone anywhere and were still putting material out there for both older fans to enjoy and those lucky enough to discover their antics for the first time. Still, it wouldn’t hurt to give them a big budget cinema release, would it?

The Muppets (the film, that is) works as both a reintroduction to the crazy world of all the Muppets characters and as a nostalgic love letter to the characters who brought endless joy amd amusement to young and old alike over thirty plus years. This is in no small part thanks to Jason Segel’s script and gneral involvement, approaching it entirely from a fan’s perspective and incorporating all of the things that made The Muppets so loveable in the first place.

And those aspects still work today and prove the formula is timeless. The jokes are frequently self-referential and break the fourth wall, there are catchy songs aplenty and a huge number of celebrity cameos, proving if nothing else that the Muppets are still as popular as ever, they just needed a big cinema release to get their faces back out there. The songs from Brett MacKenzie (one half of Flight of the Conchords) are ridiculously catchy and fit the film’s tone to a tee. Also, if you ever wanted to see Chris Cooper rap then this is your opportunity.

Going back to basics, The Muppets is a simple “getting the band back together” tale, with the various Muppets now earning a living in other fields and forced to reunite in order to protect their theatre from Chris Cooper’s business magnate Tex Richman who wants to knock down the theatre and profit from the oil that lies beneath it. Just as an example of the Airplane style humour employed in he script, Richman always says “Maniacal Laugh” rather than actually laughing. A minor note of comedy genius in a script full with brief yet often hilarious minor moments.

Barbershop Quartet + Nirvana = much fun.

Kermit is lounging in his luxury mansion, Miss Piggy is head of a fashion chain (spoofing The Devil Wears Prada), and Gonzo is inexplicably one of the biggest names in the world of toilets and plumbing equipment. At the other end of the success scale is Fozzy Bear, who has found himself performing with a terrible Muppets tribute act called The Moopets. And as for the crazed drumming antics of Animal, they have since been curtailed by his resident in a care home and is reduced to playing the triangle.

The other half of the story centres on Walter, a long term fan of the Muppets who finds himself involved in their fundraising event whilst dealing with the realisation that he is, oddly, nothing like his brother Gary (Segel). This may have something to do with the fact Walter is a Muppet himself whereas Gary is, well, Jason Segel. Meanwhile the human story is covered by Gary and his relationship with Mary (Amy Adams) who experience some relationship woes as a result of Gary and Walter assisting the Muppets. Suffice to say, all of the woes will be resolved by the film’s end because this is a Muppets movie, and unless you’re eternally cold hearted you will experience a pleasant glow on reaching the end credits. Welcome back Muppets, it’s nice to see you again.

Score: 4/5

Enter The Dragon (1973)

Simon Prior

2014-09-09

The fan-girls had become a little too enthusiastic.

Twitter Plot Summary: Bruce Lee goes to an island and fights a man with one hand. Oh, and an army of loyal martial arts experts.

Five Point Summary:

1. The shrieking has begun already.
2. Jim Kelly. Nice afro, but he clearly won’t be around for long.
3. John Saxon as a martial artist? Pull the other one.
4. One inch punch… OF DEATH.
5. Room of mirrors.

Crash zooms and screaming martial artists are the order of the day in 1973s Enter The Dragon, the first Bruce Lee movie to be released following his death. It perhaps marks his finest work, a cavalcade of shrieks, crunching sound effects and almost non-stop displays of martial arts prowess. Lee goes undercover to the island home of a criminal warlord, using the massive martial arts tournament as a smokescreen for his activities.

The plot serves only to facilitate the numerous bouts of fisticuffs that randomly take place from the opening scene onwards, focusing on the traditional notion of honour in battle and offering a fair fight. This is a process that our villain Han is patently not a follower of, his prison cells crammed to burstingg point with his enemies, and also has a penchant for stacking the odds in his favour before moving in for the kill, like using a variety of deadly replacements for his missing hand, using sizeable goons to do most of his dirty work, or by using a room full of mirrors to disorient his opponent.

Han is in pure Bond villain territory – he has a fluffy white cat and a metal hand, after all. Unlike the majority of Bond villains, he’s actually quite a competent fighter, and perfectly willing to get his hands dirty. It’s Bruce Lee who is the star here though, of course. He was and will remain a martial arts legend and this is borne out through his performance in Enter The Dragon. He looks to be in the best possible shape physically, and he displays an incredible amount of physical strength, dexterity and nuance as he takes on wave after wave of mostly nameless goons before his final showdown with Han.

Nice afro. But do you know how to use it? Golly!

The obvious dubbing does it hurt it slightly, but then it’s an inevitable result when you record the whole film without sound. In an interesting yet ultimately minor twist on expectations, the supposed good guys are dressed in black whilst Han’s men are dressed entirely in white, playing with our preconceived notions of good and evil.

Jim Kelly is given an “introducing” billing, yet doesn’t appear to have done much else beyond appearing in blaxploitation martial arts films and having an impressive afro. His character is done no favours by being as stereotypically 70s as he is, enjoying a vast number of women, talking jive and havin that aforementioned afro – it doesn’t matter how impressive it might be. John Saxon meanwhile appears as the obligatory white American, and whilst he has appeared in much more notable fare (including but not limited to A Nightmare on Elm Street and Beverly Hills Cop 3), he never entirely convinces as a martial arts expert – some decent editing does him many favours.

It’s a shame that Lee did not get a full innings, proverbially speaking, as you can imagine the direction he may have been able to take the martial arts genre in had he lived even just a few more years. While The Game of Death may have featured an archive appearance by Lee in 1978, Enter The Dragon should rightfully be considered his cinematic epitaph, and serve as a clear demonstration of his extensive contribution to the martial arts film genre.

Score: 4/5

Zero Dark Thirty (2013)

Simon Prior

2014-09-08

"I'm sorry, we can't attack this building - it's too small." — “I’m sorry, we can’t attack this building – it’s too small.”

Twitter Plot Summary: The hunt for Osama Bin Laden following the events of 9/11, told from the perspective of a CIA Analyst obsessed with the project.

Five Point Summary:

1. Waterboarding and other torture techniques: Vol 1.
2. Dinner in posh Pakistan restaurants seems like a bad idea.
3. Never invite a suspected terrorist into your facility.
4. Hey look, it’s John Barrowman!
5. The assault on the complex. Tense stuff.

Zero Dark Thirty began life as the story of US intelligence’s failure to locate Osama Bin Laden, until at the very last minute he was tracked down and killed by Navy Seals. This resulted in a change to the film’s purpose and arguably makes for a much more interesting adaptation of real world events as a result.

Suffice to say, Zero Dark Thirty is grim viewing. Exploring the US perspective on the conflict with Al-Qaeda following the attacks on 9/11, the 2.5 hour running time dramatises real world terrorist attacks from 2001 onwards, the US efforts to extract information from suspected terrorists via water boarding and other torture techniques, and the constant threat posed by Al Qaeda and their non-centralised terrorist cells. Through a mixture of questionable methods, hunches and good old fashioned detective skills, the CIA

It also remains a thoroughly gripping piece of film-making, Kathryn Bigelow crafting a story that follows the initially naive agent Maya (Chastain) as she buries herself in fragments of possible intelligence, sifting through absolutely everything and slowly trying to take down the terrorist cells responsible for attacks on the west. Bigelow has a perfect handle on finding the human moments amongst the violence, and Zero Dark Thirty is no different to her previous efforts. You feel the frustration, the pervading sense of fear, the near sense of hopelessness in the face of an enemy that doesn’t play by the normal rules of combat – a distant reminder of Vietnam, even.

"This is a lovely wall." — “This is a lovely wall.”

This all builds to the final act, where a team of Navy Seals storm Bin Laden’s compound in near enough real time, drawing close inspiration from real world events and putting the audience right into the action by using the camera almost like the first person perspective of one of the Seals, further emphasised by the occasional use of a night vision filter. This sequence is played out in real time and is all the better for it. Despite the outcome being known and the superior US forces taking on just a few people, it’s still a gripping few moments.

You don’t particularly need to be a fan of either side as presented here, both Al Qaeda and the CIA have less than appropriate methods for achieving their goals. Obviously any act of terrorism should be met with an appropriate level of disdain as there’s no call for it, but at the same time this isn’t a flag waving exercise about the US secret service. It’s more an insight into the thinking and thought process of a single woman, Maya (Chastain), who becomes obsessed with the task of hunting down Bin Laden. Within the film it is a cause that she unwaveringly follows from her induction into the CIA despite the many risks that she inherently finds herself exposed to. She’s almost an automaton, with no defining characteristics other than her determination to see this through. Without her obsession, who is she?

From this perspective, how different is she from the terrorist whom she is trying to track down, who are similarly blank slates intent on their cause to the detriment of everything else. It’s this dark mirror which sits uncomfortably in the background throughout all of Zero Dark Thirty, and whilst neither glorifying or condemning the efforts of both sides it does highlight the sad reality of the world we live in today. This, if nothing else, is Zero Dark Thirty’s most powerful message.

Score: 4/5

Trailers, Spoilers, And Giving The Game Away

Simon Prior

2014-09-07

Please note that there are potential spoilers discussed in this article (duh), so proceed with caution.

For a very long time I have had a problem with film trailers, particularly those that give away the action in the third act or final set piece in a bid to get people into cinemas to see the full film. In the last 18 months I have made a more concerted effort to visit the cinema and subsequently have been exposed to more trailers than ever before. The more of them you see (and the more of the films you subsequently see), the more obvious the conventions they use are. They usually fall into two categories: the ones that spoil the end of the film (I’m looking at you, Fast and Furious 6) or go to lengths to spell out the entire narrative in the space of 2 minutes and defeat the purpose of going to see the whole film – most romantic comedies fall into this category.

On the whole, I prefer not to see any trailers or spoilers before a film’s release as I prefer to be surprised, either pleasantly or not, about the film’s contents. The only time I have fully appreciated trailers is when they have pointed me towards a film I wasn’t previously aware of that piques my interest. I acknowledge that I am perhaps an oddity in is respect, but I don’t need the latest set news or leaked footage in order to be excited about a film’s release. In this respect I am very much in favour of the JJ Abrams/Christopher Nolan approach of almost total media silence, with a gradual dripfeed of information building to the film’s release. I’m as excited as anyone about the forthcoming Interstellar and Star Wars Episode VII, but I won’t be seeking out any further information on them ahead of release – I will however have to go and see them on release day (or as near as possible) in order to avoid unscrupulous spoilers.

They also have a habit of blatantly lying to the audience, again in a bid to get bums on seats in the auditorium. My earliest memory of this is with Star Trek: Insurrection, released in 1999. The trailer implies that the Enterprise is involved in a full-on war with the Federation, taking part in epic space battles and standing up for principles that the Federation should be upholding. As it turned out, the space battles hinted at in the trailer were clips taken from the previous Star Trek film, First Contact, and the entire film was nothing more than a feature length version of a story that wouldn’t be out of place on the television series, albeit one given a movie sized budget. Disappointment doesn’t even begin to cover it. I understand the need for a bit of creative editing to pull in an audience – the movie makers are in it to make some money after all – but making the film out to be something that it isn’t will not endear you to those who have seen the trailer and, perhaps more importantly, will potentially make them think twice about paying money to go and see the next installment. Somehow this theory doesn’t apply to Michael Bay’s Transformers franchise which continues to make huge amounts of money despite repeating the same old formula time and time again.

More recently the trailer for Godzilla did something similar. Whilst I still enjoyed the film very much, the trailer heavily emphasised the presence of Bryan Cranston (no doubt profiting from his recent role as Walter White on Breaking Bad) as a man obsessed with the nuclear creature(s) and implies that he’s central component of the story. Instead he’s unceremoniously bumped off after the first act and we’re left with a human personality vacuum for the remainder of the film. From that point forward Godzilla emotes more than the emotionally stunted character portrayed by Aaron Taylor-Johnson. This is yet another example of a film not living up to the promise of the trailer, and it starts to grate after a while.

My only other complaint about trailers isn’t anything to do with their construction or existence, but more to do with the cinemas that show them. My main cinema, for budgetary reasons, is Cineworld. They show a vast number of trailers for forthcoming films, yet while their film selection is generally quite impressive, in many instances the films they advertise don’t appear in their cinemas. Frank is a film I am really interested in seeing, yet despite seeing the trailers for several weeks ahead of its release it never showed up in my Cineworld. I will get to see it eventually – Dom Hemingway was another film that was advertised at Cineworld but only got a 9.30pm screening at the nearby Odeon. As I finish work at 4pm and live 35 minutes away from the cinema, a 5 hour wait just to see one film wasn’t feasible. I eventually got to see it a year later, and I expect it to be similar circumstances for Frank and all of the other films I’ve missed so far in 2014. Despite seeing an average of 2 films a week at the cinema, there’s still a lot I miss.

I’m of the opinion that we should get back to the days of just showing quick, 60 second teasers that don’t give everything away and do just enough to get an audience interested. We don’t need to see the explosive finales of these films, nor do we need to know the entire plot before we go to see the film proper. Just tell us the basics so we can say yay or nay and leave it at that. It may also mean that we don’t have to spend 25 minutes before the film’s advertised start time sitting through adverts and trailers. Let’s face it, this can’t be a bad thing. Unless you’re frequently late to a film – in which case start arriving earlier.

Tinker Bell and The Pirate Fairy (2014)

Simon Prior

2014-09-06

Arr, me hearties! Or words to that effect.

Twitter Plot Summary: Tinker Bell and her fairy friends must stop a pirate fairy from causing mischief with some new fairy dust.

Five Point Summary:

1. Tinkering with fairy dust? Tut tut.
2. Hands up who thinks they know who the pirate fairy is?
3. Oh no, all their powers have been swapped!
4. Something’s amiss.
5. That rascal.

The first question likely to be raised by Tinker Bell and the Pirate Fairy is how it ever managed to get a wide cinema release instead of going directly to DVD as you might expect. It’s likely something to do with how poor the offerings have been in releases for kids this year, but at the same time The Pirate Fairy is a clear indication of the relatively poor quality of children’s entertainment at the cinema in 2014.

This is a film that is pitched perfectly at its target audience, namely the under fives. For everyone else – and boys, most likely – it’s as lightweight as Tinker Bell’s pixie dust, but without the magic abilities. It’s not too taxing in terms of the story or the themes on show, and the animation is surprisingly adept – another reason why it could make the transition to the big screen. The plot itself is simple – a renegade fairy leaves the community after experimenting with fair dust that causes all sorts of moderate levels of mayhem. Fast forward a year and she’s taken on command of a pirate ship and crew, and it’s up to Tinker Bell and her friends to stop her plans. Whatever they may be. The remainder of the plot sees the obligatory elements of movies for youngsters. There’s much derring do of a piratey nature, a cute big-eyed animal (in this instance a baby crocodile), cutesy colourful fairies for girls to enjoy, and a theme of learning the benefits of friendship and being able to embrace new skills and new ways of doing things. Just imagine if they made one of these with no moral at its centre? The world would stop spinning, no doubt.

"What is it?" "It's... purple!" — “What is it?”
“It’s… purple!”

It would be very cynical to say that elements of the story are designed to sell more toys – at one point Tinker Bell and her fairy friends are splashed with rainbow dust that both switches their powers and changes the colour of their outfits – but then in many respects that’s why these films exist. Children who watch the film and enjoy it will no doubt want to play with the toys afterwards, and it’s not as if the new costumes are thrust in our face every five seconds.

At least it gets the voice acting right, although the now traditional game of Spot The Famous Name begins and ends with Tom Hiddleston as the pirate first mate James, and he throws himself into the role with gusto – he clearly enjoys the pirate life. Christina Hendricks also pops up as fairy dust tinkerer Zarina, and manages to make her an enjoyable addition to the Tinker Bell canon. No pirate pun intended.

Ultimately, while it may not have been an entirely suitable film to get a cinema release, it does at least do its job of providing entertainment for a younger audience. It’s just a shame that Tinker Bell herself is reduced to a bit-player in her own film, but then a larger cast of characters means more toys can be sold, obviously.

Score: 2.5/5

Mars Attacks (1996)

Simon Prior

2014-09-05

I'd trust this face. — I’d trust this face.

Twitter Plot Summary: The trading card game is brought to life by Tim Burton and his eclectic cameo cast.

Five Point Summary:

1. Let’s just meet everybody. Literally everybody.
2. It’s all that dove’s fault. Maybe.
3. Jack Nicholson! Again!
4. Tom Jones!
5. That’s a potent defence against alien invasion.

In 1996 Tim Burton took on the alien invasion genre, and true to form his version is played entirely for laughs and encompasses his own very particular view of the universe. Suffice to say, it’s incredibly offbeat, frequently weird, and filled with a vast number of famous faces. Despite being planned years beforehand and being released in a few months after Independence Day, Mars Attacks manages to effectively spoof its big budget alien invasion rival, showing the lives of people from all walks of life in the United States as the alien menace arrives. Initial attempts at friendly contact are apparently ruined by the presence of an ill-fated dove at the landing ceremony.

The best part – and this will no doubt come as a huge surprise to many – is the cameo from Tom Jones. He’s in the midst of a typical Las Vegas performance when the invasion takes place. Whilst having no acting ability in the slightest, it’s this that makes him the most entertaining cameo by far. His is not the only big cameo role, however. Almost every other character is played by a big name star, including brief appearances by Pam Grier, Danny DeVito, Jack Nicholson (as two characters, the United States President and a white-toothed businessman looking to cash in on the alien’s arrival), Glenn Close, Michael J Fox, Sarah Jessica Parker, Martin Short and Pierce Brosnan. Each of them provide performances that are just on the right side of the knowing nudge-nudge, wink-wink barrier and would have only been needed for a few days apiece in order to film all of their segments. There’s no need to dial performances up to 11 as the script has already gone beyond that boundary.

Tom Jones' choice of backing singers was becoming decidedly awkward. — Tom Jones’ choice of backing singers was becoming decidedly awkward.

Plot points are raised but never resolved, such as how the aliens work out how to breathe in our atmosphere, but this is entirely in line with the 1950s B-movies upon which Mars Attacks draws its inspiration. That is, both the Mars Attacks film and the trading card series from which it was spawned. The special effects hold up surprisingly well, no doubt assisted by the almost cartoon presentation of the Martians, their vessels and the destruction they wreak.

And of course, there’s the Martians themselves, with their classic 50s sci-fi outfits, and equipment. Presented in stereotypical fashion with big brains, bug eyes and green skin, they are frequently hilarious, rampaging across the planet with a level of giddy amusement akin to kids being let loose in a sweet shop. Whilst their poorly translated English offers plenty of laughs in itself, their original language – a series of sharp duck-like sounds – is even funnier. Despite the carnage it’s hard to take them seriously, unlike their alien brethren in Independence Day, but then that makes their actions all the more entertaining. It’s just a shame for them (and lucky for humanity) that they’re not keen on our music. Furthermore, as a metaphor about US politics the Martians are perhaps a little bit too on the nose for comfort, but if you disregard the political satire you would still have an entertaining B-movie parody, although your enjoyment will depend on whether or not you appreciate the black comedy that is laced throughout Burton’s work.

Score: 3.5/5

1...414243...90 Page 42 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM