The Expendables (2010)

2014-09-04

"And over there is my mother. Stay in the shadows - she likes fresh blood." — “And over there is my mother. Stay in the shadows – she likes fresh blood.”

Twitter Plot Summary: The Expendables are a fighting unit who will do the jobs you hate – a bit like Mr Muscle.

Five Point Summary:

1. Brief cameo time.
2. Eric Roberts in a suit = super evil.
3. Who’d have thought Statham and Stallone would have chemistry?
4. Let’s break out the big guns, why not.
5. Man on fire, people dying and so on.

In recent years there has been an increase in the popularity of daft action films, part of which came from Sylvester Stallone and his 2008 Rambo sequel which was frankly ludicrous in its excessive number of deaths and wanton violence. Step up The Expendables, once again from the twisted action brain of Sylvester Stallone, whereby a team of trained killers do dirty jobs worldwide and get paid handsomely for their efforts.

The story is one that action movie fans will be familiar with, most of it coming directly from the Commando script playbook. There’s a commanding general on a small island who is set up as a target for The Expendables, a group of commandos who take only the dirtiest and least desirable of jobs. The general isn’t the real target though. That honour lies with Eric Roberts and his henchman Steve Austin, who are bankrolling the general. Roberts is no Vernon Wells, but in almost every respect it’s the same film as Commando but with 50% less fun and a team of commandos instead of the one man army that was John Matrix.

What marks the most surprising aspect of The Expendables is that Statham and Stallone have a surprising amount of screen chemistry as brothers in arms, creating a pairing that would justify a film series all by itself. The fact there is a plethora of other action stars to hand is just icing on the cake. It’s a shame for Stallone that his face looks like it’s melting and his thin goatee beard looks like it’s been painted on, and his fellow action stars of yore are not looking that great either, but that is half the point – most of these guys are past their best but they’re still capable of killing other men with big guns.

"Is that a dry cleaners over there? My suit needs a scrub." — “Is that a dry cleaners over there? My suit needs a scrub.”

This first entry in the series features a huge number of action stars from past and present, the story hearkening back to classic action films from the 80s and beyond. It’s as cheesy as it gets without ever fully crossing over the line into knowing self-mocking territory. Big things were made regarding the (incredibly brief) Planet Hollywood cameos of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis, which at the time were big coups for Stallone – possibly the three biggest action stars from the 80s united if only for the briefest of moments. It’s this abundance of star names that is both The Expendables franchise’s unique selling point yet also its downfall. There are that many stars that they don’t get enough screen time and little effort is made to draw them in any significant detail with the exception of Barney Ross and Lee Christmas.

The story may not be completely up to scratch – but then in the action movie genre, what story is? – however the action sequences are sufficient to see you through. There may not be enough of them dotted throughout the 103 minutes of running time, but when the bullets do kick up a storm of dust the violence is graphic and does just enough to satisfy fans of the genre. It may not be the best, but it’s a return to the good old days of two dimensional action movie heroics that have been sadly neglected since the early 90s.

Score: 3/5

The Little Mermaid (1989)

Simon Prior

2014-09-03

The exploding bidet caught her very much by surprise.

Twitter Plot Summary: Ariel is disenchanted with her life as a mermaid princess when she falls for a human prince.

Five Point Summary:

1. She’s a bit spoilt, by the looks of it.
2. Under Da Sea.
3. She’s willing to do a lot just to find a man. Use Tinder like everyone else.
4. Kiss De Girl.
5. Everything works out in the end. Of course it does.

As discussed extensively before, Disney had a bit of a rough time in the 1980s. The formula wasn’t quite gelling and efforts to do something a bit different were met with general disdain from the public. And so after a less than successful decade, Disney managed to get themselves back on the right track by combining a fun story with catchy songs and some enjoyable talking sea creatures thrown in for good measure. In many respects it’s a shame that Ariel doesn’t fit in with the traditional Disney Princess template by being totally drippy and willing to change herself wholesale in order to find true love with some guy she’s just met. In that respect she’s not so much a worthy status symbol for young girls, but more an indication as to how not to behave when searching for a prospective partner.

Ariel is disenchanted with her life under the sea as the mermaid daughter of King Triton. After a chance encounter with a sinking ship and Prince Eric, a typically dashing young man who is everything a girl could ever want – he even has a dog – she opts to give her voice away to the evil enchantress Ursula (for reasons that will become clear in the murky depths of the ocean) in exchange for legs so she can toddle onto land and woo Eric, albeit through sign language or something given that she can’t speak. It’s a little strange that Eric doesn’t find her lack of voice the least bit concerning, but then that would be adding an almost unnecessary level of detail to the story, wouldn’t it.

Crabs as headgear were all the rage in 1989.

Thankfully despite the less than inspiring story the songs are great fun, with two of them – Under The Sea and Kiss The Girl – becoming Disney classics in the intervening years. The animated sequences accompanying the tracks are equally as good, and whereas Ariel isn’t as strong a character as you might hope, her lobster companion/advisor Sebastian is a worthwhile entry in the Disney catalogue of characters and despite his borderline racist dialogue is the best character to appear in this film by a long distance.

There are still elements of the darker edge that Disney have occasionally added to their films, most notably in an early sequence involving a very toothy shark. Suffice to say it may scare younger viewers, at least in these initial stages. The duo of Flotsam and Jetsam may also provide the odd nightmare, for their sinister voices and yellow eye apiece. Our villain of the piece is Ursula, half fat woman, half squid/octopus with a voice that could only come from smoking a hundred cigarettes a day. Given that she lives “under da sea” that is perhaps an unlikely sequence of events as the cigarettes would undoubtedly be a touch soggy. Her plan, to steal Ariel’s voice and steal Eric away from her, is Disney Villainy 101, but lacks the impact of the earlier classics. At least The Little Mermaid marked Disney’s return to form and led into their later dominance in the early 1990s, even if the film itself doesn’t quite reach the same levels as those later hits of the 90s.

Score: 3.5/5

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Simon Prior

2014-09-02

Her suspicions had been correct - they were indeed guns. — Her suspicions had been correct – they were indeed guns.

Twitter Plot Summary: Lara Croft makes the transfer from video games to the big screen in a mostly vacuous action romp.

Five Point Summary:

1. Chris Barrie, always a pleasure.
2. You can tell he’s a villain because he likes black.
3. Daniel Craig and his awkward American accent.
4. Stone idols… alive!
5. Some nonsense about time travel…

There was a time (as in the mid 90s) when Lara Croft was solid gold in terms of her popularity and media saturation, a creation who had managed to transcend the fact she was a fictional video game character and transferred into a mainstream icon. Sadly for her (and her creators), the subsequent sequels to the original Tomb Raider game gradually ruined the forward momentum generated in that era, and a slow downward spiral would ensue until the release of The rebooted Tomb Raider in 2013. Of course, before all of that were two Tomb Raider movies starring Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft.

The plot of this first movie is pure gubbins, even more far-fetched than those that featured in the video games – the alien plot from the original Tomb Raider game included. The reason for Lara and the bad guys raiding the tomb(s) in this instance is tied in with an ancient prophecy involving planetary alignment. It’s this that brings together bored adventurer Lara Croft, villain Manfred Powell (Iain Glen) and fellow tomb raider Alex (Daniel Craig) who is in Powell’s employ.

There are clearly moments targeted towards the rabid fanboys – Lara clambering into the shower being just one of them – but for the most part this is Indiana Jones for the iPod generation, a whistle stop tour through the relics left by ancient civilisations and a story that doesn’t care so much for the history provided there’s opportunity for something to explode or for Angelina Jolie to pout at the camera.

Simon West directs with all the verve of a post-90s action director, which inevitably means that it’s primarily style over substance. In that respect it’s not too dissimilar from the many other action films released during this era. There’s a lot going on despite the wafer thin narrative, but all the noise and CGI can only disguise this to a point.

If you weren't entirely convinced by the greased back hair and the black outfit - he's a bad guy. — If you weren’t entirely convinced by the greased back hair and the black outfit – he’s a bad guy.

Daniel Craig rocks up, pre-Bond, with a painful American accent as Alex. He does at least look like he’s enjoying himself playing a male version of Lara with less scruples. It would have been better for him to use his native accent, but then if he had done that everyone would be speaking in an English accent and that would no doubt be frowned upon.

On the more positive side, Chris Barrie is a hoot as Lara’s faithful butler, a less uptight Arnold Rimmer in a smart suit, and Iain Glen as the villain Manfred Powell – you can tell he’s a bad guy because he’s both English and dresses entirely in black – exudes a perfect level of slimey charm. Seriously, the man should be in absolutely everything ever made.

In hindsight perhaps Jolie isn’t the best choice for playing Lara Croft, but then at the time it’s hard to think of anybody else who may have been suitable. Today, in the post Tomb Raider reboot era, there are a few more potential actresses to choose from, and given how keen Hollywood is to reboot everything these days it would be interesting to see how they would approach casting her now.

Today the film Lara Croft: Tomb Raider retains a cheesy level of charm and bubblegum levels of inoffensiveness, but in the grand history of cinema it stands to be considered as a cult favourite and nothing more.

Score: 3/5

The Colony (2013)

Simon Prior

2014-09-01

Fishburne planned on destroying all the unsold copies of The Matrix Revolutions.

Twitter Plot Summary: Following a man-made global freeze, Colony 7 have to contend with the common cold and cannibals. Natural combo.

Five Point Summary:

1. Spot the red shirt. Far too keen.
2. It’s all getting a bit creepy.
3. Cannibal killers. Nice.
4. Bill Paxton, marking a new career as a bad guy.
5. Why won’t you die?!

The Colony could be seen as a companion piece to Snowpiercer, both films being released around the same time (in some territories at least) and set following our attempts at controlling the weather/global warming. When things go pear-shaped and the planet being engulfed in a new ice age, that’s where our story begins. Unlike the train in Snowpiercer that never stops, here the story focuses on a few survivors eking out an existence in an underground colony that is protected from the worst of the weather. True to form, everything is out to get this plucky group of survivors: the weather, each other, and the feral cannibal tribe that are inexplicably traversing the frozen tundra in search of fresh meat.

In the lead role is Kevin Zegers, a man clearly cast either because the couldn’t get Aaron Paul (of Breaking Bad and Need For Speed fame), or they wanted someone who looked a bit like him. In any case his droll narration is akin to Harrison Ford’s equally dull voiceover on the original cut of Blade Runner, and the rest of his performance is sadly lacking. By the time he reaches the third act it’s unclear whether or not he (and the script) have lapsed into parody territory, a final battle being won with one of those rocking blade pizza slicers, of all things.

Big name star power is provided by Laurence Fishburne and Bill Paxton, but their roles are poorly defined (much like the rest of the cast in fairness) and they don’t have that much to do in the grand scheme of things. Paxton gets a bit more time so he can stand in the doorway of “bad guy” mode, while Fishburne is in Morpheus territory, albeit a twilight years Morpheus where every decision or choice is met with a sigh.

Zegers was disappointed when Paxton didn't scream "Game over, man!" — Zegers was disappointed when Paxton didn’t scream “Game over, man!”

The story is moderately competent but it never fully fleshes out the world in which events take place, and would have benefitted from having a 2 hour running time to allow more time for the characters to be defined and expand on the reasons for there being a pack of feral bad guys moving from colony to colony and wiping out those who are in their path, as this is never explored or explained. An extended running time would also have helped us care for the characters before they are inevitably taken down by the cannibal pack, as no opportunity is provided for this and no connection is made with the audience.

The Colony proves that just because you have a low budget doesn’t necessarily mean the movie will be bad, it just means the money has to be used in a slightly more effective manner, and the script could do with the odd tweak. It does trot out the usual science fiction/horror movie cliches, but it uses them moderately well and proves to be entertaining if not spectacular. And therein lies The Colony’s true problems – it’s in too much of a rush to get to the violent third act without spending enough time on the world or the characters who exist there. In this respect, having a couple of big name actors in your cast will only allow you a certain amount of leeway before people start picking holes in your production. Save this one for a late night viewing to get the most out of it.

Score: 2.5/5

Why Do We Enjoy Bad Films?

Simon Prior

2014-08-31

What is it about bad films that makes us sit through to the end? To revel in the poor output of those involved in the production? To understand that you’re never going to get those 90-odd minutes back? It’s a tricky proposition to consider, time is a precious commodity which we (and myself in particular) complain frequently about not having enough of. To a certain extent my enjoyment of bad films comes from them being very easy to write reviews for. Bad acting, special effects that appear to have been stolen from an early 90s video game, ridiculously out of place musical cues, even sloppy direction where the actors or action aren’t framed correctly – just one or a combination of all of these issues can make my life much easier.

It’s not just that, however. Sometimes it’s fun to watch a film purely for entertainment purposes. Sure, I enjoy the big Hollywood blockbusters and the well-crafted stories that are in Oscar territory, but sometimes you just want something that you don’t have to think about too much, that will entertain you regardless. Being entertained can fall into two categories, again split between films with a bigger budget and those that you could make with a 5p coin and a bin liner. Usually the bad films – the really bad films – are recommended to me by Netflix. Many more are available for free via YouTube, they’re so bad that the copyright holders aren’t bothered that the film’s out there in the public domain. That should surely tell you something.

In the majority of cases a bad film can cause just as much enjoyment as one that has been meticulously crafted and is at the opposite end of the production spectrum. Something like Die Hard remains entertaining every single time you see it, and its quality does not diminish after repeated viewings. On the other end of the spectrum is something like Birdemic: Shock and Terror, which is so appallingly bad that you either laugh all the way through it or get through the first ten minutes, decide your life is better spent doing something else, and switch it off. I’ve always preferred to sit through the whole film in these cases, more so obviously since starting regular work on this website. You can’t review a film honestly if you’ve only watched the first half an hour, can you?

Then there are repeat offenders in the “bad film” category. The likes of director Uwe Boll or producer Roger Corman churn out film after film of mostly poor quality, in their cases being either adaptations of video games or schlock creature features respectively. Boll has to my knowledge never made a film that could be considered “moderately good”, let alone just “good” or even “great”. He’s also that rare breed of filmmaker who is adamant that his films are good – sorry Uwe, not in the slightest. Yet somehow the man still manages to pull in big name actors to star in his films other than offering them a fun filming environment (because the payments aren’t going to be that big), I can’t understand how. Incidentally, I have no intention of fighting Uwe Boll in a boxing match – just in case he reads this and puts the offer out there. Sorry Uwe, never going to happen. I will still watch your films, however. Out of morbid curiosity, mostly.

Talking of Boll, Michael Bay is a law unto himself in terms of big budget “bad” films. As a long time fan of the Transformers franchise it’s sad to see him tarnish their good name with, to date, four overly long, explosive (not in a good way), poorly plotted adventures with the likes of Optimus Prime et al. I had good opinions of the first film at one point, but three subsequently dire sequels have tarnished my opinions of it. Again, that’s a blog topic for another time.

There was a film I watched last year called Drainiac, which I’ll review when I get chance to watch it again, where the production quality was terrible (sound quality and camera work was all over the place) and the story didn’t make sense, but it was for sale in Poundland (a chain of stores in the UK where everything is £1) and thought I’d give it a go. Ironically, Poundland have started offering better quality films lately, but that’s a blog for another week. In the case of Drainiac, it provided genuine laughs where a random fart sound is heard in one scene. I’m not sure if that was deliberately left in, or if the actor passed wind on the take and nobody noticed, or if it was just an issue with the DVD bearing in mind how cheaply produced it was, but either way it remains a highlight of the film to this day.

It’s a slightly different story with the films that are deliberately made badly, or are fully aware of their place in the quality spectrum. Troma have made a long career out of releasing films that have never been particularly good – let’s face it, The Toxic Avenger series is perhaps their best work and even those films are awful – but they are fully aware of this fact and, using their own particular style, continue to make films “the Troma way”. The same goes for the likes of the current batch of Piranha films, or anything starring Bruce Campbell – those involved know exactly what they’re getting themselves in for by playing it tongue in cheek. This is something Uwe Boll could learn from – if his films weren’t played so terribly straight and introduced a knowing sense of humour then perhaps they wouldn’t be derided quite as much as they are.

I think you need to be in the right mindset to really enjoy a bad film. Some people, quite rightly, will limit themselves to films that specifically appeal to them, films that perhaps automatically achieve a certain level of quality. Then there’s us, the cinema-obsessed film viewers who will watch anything and everything that could be classed as film. Those who don’t appreciate bad films won’t get it, but we watch those bad films because we love the art of filmmaking in whatever form it may take. And besides – what I class as a “bad film” someone else may absolutely love, and that is what I appreciate most about cinema.

Lucy (2014)

Simon Prior

2014-08-30

His sales pitch was being lapped up by the captive audience.

Twitter Plot Summary: Lucy finds herself using more than 10% of her brain capacity after a drug seeps into her bloodstream.

Five Point Summary:

1. That drug looks a lot like Walter White’s own brand.
2. Why is Morgan Freeman even here?
3. Some random French cop is now along for the ride too.
4. Obligatory random shootout in a fancy looking corridor.
5. Isn’t she becoming her character from Under The Skin?!

Luc Besson’s work as a film director have a delightfully off-kilter perspective to them, no doubt a result of his mainland Europe origins and unique perspective on storytelling. This immediately comes to the fore in Lucy, his latest directorial effort, where we’re treated to shots of creatures in the natural world intercut with the main action, a less than subtle metaphor for the predatory nature of some people or species. There’s even opportunity to pay homage to the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey with a flashback to the earliest proto-human, and another less than subtle metaphor of the first human being named Lucy.

Lucy takes its inspiration from the (incorrect) notion that humans can only use 10% of their brains capacity, and if we were to unlock more of this we would be able to control our bodily functions (not just the decision about when we visit the toilet), develop telekinetic powers and be able to visualise wifi signals – because humans with use of 40% of their brain’s capacity are always wanting to check their emails or post their latest thoughts on Facebook.

Ironically it’s as Lucy (the character) starts to get closer and closer towards accessing 100% of her brain’s capacity that the plot starts to unravel, the urgency decreasing despite the plot threads making their way towards their resolution. The Triad gangsters wander around Paris with their guns on display and barely an eyelid is batted by the locals, and when the inevitable gunfight takes place it’s limited to a corridor that dissolves in vast showers of plaster as if it’s an unused set from the Matrix trilogy.

Morgan Freeman was surprised to find out he was in the film, and almost entirely unnecessary.

Johansson is a dedicated lead, managing to make us care about Lucy despite the lack of time given to developing her personality. She is at first in way over her head, an unwitting and unwilling drug mule forced to smuggle a new drug into Europe via an incision in her stomach. As she begins to unlock more of her brain’s capacity she becomes more of an automaton, losing her humanity as a direct result of her burgeoning intelligence and abilities. This portion of the story isn’t given anywhere near enough time to be fully developed, the third act apparently choosing to rush towards its conclusion rather than make an effort to develop the idea further. A missed opportunity, perhaps.

Morgan Freeman is almost superfluous to the plot, although you could argue that applies to everyone else here besides Lucy and the Triad gangsters who kick the story off. Even the French cop who Lucy pairs up with serves no purpose other than to act as a reminder to Lucy of what it means to be human, and even then he doesn’t do a particularly good job of it, spending much of his time running around after her and looking puzzled.

There are a lot of good ideas in Lucy, even if the plot that drives it is pure hokum. It may not make much sense scientifically but as entertainment in its most basic form it succeeds.

Score: 3/5

Metallica: Through The Never (2013)

Simon Prior

2014-08-29

Say what you will, Metallica's live sets never fail to impress. — Say what you will, Metallica’s live sets never fail to impress.

Twitter Plot Summary: Part Metallica concert, part interpretative mostly silent action movie. Entirely good.

Five Point Summary:

1. For Whom The Bell Tolls.
2. One.
3. Master of Puppets.
4. Nothing Else Matters.
5. Orion.

Through The Never – a name originating from Metallica’s self titled “Black Album” released in 1991 – mixes a thriller storyline with concert footage from a number of gigs on the band’s 2012 tour. The film received a (very) brief IMAX run in 2013, and given that 3D is generally an unwelcome fad, it has to be said that Through The Never was clearly designed to be watched in three dimensions. This is perhaps the biggest problem when viewing it on the small screen. Unless you have the 3D Blu-Ray of course. Suffice to say, if you’re not a Metallica fan then please move along, there is nothing for you to see here.

The storyline attached to this concert film is almost unnecessary as the band’s showmanship, musicianship and talent is more than enough to carry a 90 minute running time and beyond. Dane DeHaan doesn’t get a huge amount to do, but he does at least have the face and the attitude to fit in with Metallica’s music. The issue with the story is that it’s never given a clear explanation, instead existing just to act as an accompaniment to the band’s music. Those sequences look incredibly good, but more effort in terms of explaining what is going on in the streets wouldn’t have hurt – turn it into an actual narrative rather than a visual representation of the songs. At first it’s almost an insult when it cuts away from the live performance and starts following DeHaan’s gopher Trip, who is tasked with taking fuel to a van that has broken down nearby. As the film progresses the transitions to see Trip’s journey become both less frequent and less grating, but it’s still at its best when it returns to the band and their impressive stage performance.

Trip’s journey is a surreal one through mostly deserted city streets, as Trip is chased by a mysterious figure riding a horse and wearing a gas mask. The quieter moments are punctuated by hundreds of rioters and police making an appearance, and the insanity could either be a direct result of Metallica’s performance or just because Trip popped a pill before heading out on his road trip.

It’s the concert footage that really wins it, with Nimrod Antal – he of Predators fame – shooting the various gigs with 24 cameras and covering every possible angle, getting right in with the band yet also being able to pull the camera out to a wide angle in order to show the arena and the fans in all their glory. Passion is the keyword to a Metallica audience, and everyone involved seems to be giving 110% – you can almost feel the impact of the mosh pits.

The set list for the film is a basic greatest hits collection of Metallica’s finest – there’s nary a sight of missteps such as St Anger – which in fairness do work well in a live setting – instead boiling it down to fan favourites and an instrumental of Orion over the end credits. Start to finish, the music is epic in every sense of the word.

Through The Never is an interesting twist on the traditional concert film, although it could do with more work in terms of defining the accompanying narrative. It is however mostly about the music, which remains as fresh and engaging as any other Metallica performance you’re likely to see. The band are still at the top of their game despite having been on the scene for 30+ years. To see them perform here, you’d never have guessed it, and that’s recommendation enough.

Score: 4/5

Blackfish (2013)

Simon Prior

2014-08-28

I'm sure this sort of behaviour is frowned upon in polite company. — I’m sure this sort of behaviour is frowned upon in polite company.

Twitter Plot Summary: A documentary about the killer whale(s) at SeaWorld, that were involved in the deaths of three people.

Five Point Summary:

1. Former SeaWorld folks dish the dirt. Good on them.
2. The first death. Scary stuff.
3. The name Killer Whale is clearly not just an attempt at irony.
4. That broken arm is gnarly.
5. Nice to see that SeaWorld made an effort to be represented… *cough*

It seems that as far as the general public are concerned, killer whales are loveable creatures – they’ve all seen Free Willy, of course, and this simple act of anthropomorphism, combined with years of regular public shows in various sea life centres globally, has created a public image of killer whales as being loveable beasts who perform tricks for fish and, in the case of Free Willy, help combat crime. Sadly that isn’t actually the case, as discussed in the documentary Blackfish.

Blackfish is primarily the story of Tilikum, a male killer whale who was involved in the deaths of three people at Sealand on the Pacific and later at Seaworld in Florida. Why did he choose to attack those people over a period of 20 plus years? Admittedly one of those deaths was that of a man who had broken into the facility and chose the wrong pool to take a swim in, but the other two were trained professional who knew the risks.

Interviews are conducted face to face with those directly involved in the shows produced by Seaworld in Florida, although markedly Seaworld refused to have any participation and manage to automatically mark themselves out as the bad guys as a result. Utilising a number of styles to make its point, extensive archive footage is used to demonstrate both the majestic beauty of these creatures and also the inherent risks involved in swimming with 5000 pound killer whales. Interspersing the archive footage and talking head interviews are brief animated segments featuring typewriter-style quotes from the court proceedings that followed each death. It keeps the narrative ticking along at a decent pace and never falls into the trap of retaining the same basic style throughout – variety is the spice of life and all that.

The documentary is not afraid to call into question the morality of capturing Orcas in the wild – they are intelligent creatures after all, and the point is made that the act of capturing those Orcas is on par with kidnapping human children. There’s also the ethics of how the whales were kept when not in their performing enclosure, with the conditions entirely unsuitable for creatures of their size and intelligence. Indeed, it seems that the act of captivity causes severe emotional and psychological trauma to them, which then leads to some form of understanding for why they would later go on to kill their trainers, either deliberately or through being overly playful.

It seems that, on the whole, there have been a ridiculous number of accidents, potential emergencies and areas of concern over the last 30 years of performances with killer whales which includes the three deaths covered in his documentary. However this alone does not appear to have been enough to restrict direct access to the whales, instead the same mistakes continue to be made and the risks never mitigated against.

Blackfish makes its point and does it well. It would have helped to have more input from the organisations responsible for hunting, capturing and making the killer whales perform in the first instance, but then as is often the case in these situations it’s rare for a documentary to provide opinions from both sides of the argument. Even without that side of the discussion, it still remains a thoughtful piece and food for thought the next time you find yourself visiting an aquarium.

Score: 4/5

Heavy Metal (1981)

Simon Prior

2014-08-27

Twitter Plot Summary: An animated film based on the magazine of the same name. There’s nudity, violence and the battle between good and evil.

Five Point Summary:

1. A New York taxi driver. And nudity.
2. Captain Sternn on trial.
3. B-17 bombers.
4. A discussion in the Pentagon. And nudity.
5. A fight to the death. And nudity.

Heavy Metal began life as a comic book/magazine, which in itself spawned from the French Metal Hurlant magazine. Heavy Metal covered the darker, occasionally more erotic side of the science fiction genre, playing to its teenage market by featuring violence, nudity and almost every possible twist on the science fiction and fantasy genres, provided of course that it features plenty of blood and topless women. That almost inevitably led to this 1981 film, because success and popularity is indicated by whether or not you were able to get a film into cinemas, apparently.

The animation is rough and ready, which fits in completely with the aesthetic of the Heavy Metal comic that spawned it. Several scenes are similar to the rotoscoping technique used by Ralph Bakshi in his animated Lord of the Rings, whilst other sections refer to a darker take on the traditional animation style. Both styles work well, in particular when combined with the soundtrack which features the likes of Journey, Black Sabbath, Nazareth and Blue Oyster Cult, amongst many others.

It’s a collection of frequently surreal animated short stories which are thematically linked by a story about an ultimate evil. The fact that it’s full of surreal imagery like floating eyes roaming a space station, or B-17 bombers with undead crew trying to nibble on the living marks it out as a definitive late night movie viewing experience.

Heavy Metal really is a product of the time that spawned it, a love letter to schlock science fiction, decent heavy rock and metal music, and lady parts. Women exist primarily to get naked and to pleasure the menfolk, and with one exception serve no further purpose. It’s clearly from the twisted minds of men unfamiliar with the concept of gender equality, or ones that don’t care about it. Women reveal their not inconsiderable bosoms on a worryingly regular basis and throw themselves at men at every opportunity – there’s a story about good and evil and a glowing green orb in there somewhere, but that almost seems secondary to having woman after woman after woman showing a bit of animated skin.

There are some good ideas on show – a taxi driver who has a hidden button to vaporise anybody whose foolish enough to threaten him with a weapon, and the weird and wonderful alien vistas that are conjured up, but the core story of this ultimate evil is lost behind an anthology format that makes little sense and that obsession with lady parts. As a flight of fancy however, one aimed at the male teenage market in the early 80s, it does its job. There are certain films which exist solely to entertain a very specific, often niche, audience and Heavy Metal was clearly made with male teenagers in mind, both in terms of its risky content, insane story and plethora of heavy metal tunes. Anyone who was a reader of the anthology comic back in the day is well served by this film, although feminists and those who have issues with the objectification of women may have a bit more to say on the matter.

Score: 3/5

Tangled (2010)

Simon Prior

2014-08-26

The bunny rabbit, a girl's natural enemy. — The bunny rabbit, a girl’s natural enemy.

Twitter Plot Summary: Rapunzel has been stuck in her tower for 18 years, and takes the opportunity to get out when she meets Flynn Rider.

Five Point Summary:

1. 18 years in a tower? Selfish old hag.
2. Flynn Rider and his ever-changing nose.
3. Maximus, super horse!
4. Lanterns. Gorgeous.
5. All ends well.

Disney’s 50th animated classic saw the company adapt the Rapunzel fairy tale and give it the traditional Disney spin, with the usual array of songs, anthropomorphic animals and a scary witch. After the moderate success of Princess and the Frog, which returned to a more traditional style of animation, Tangled utilises the now standard computer animated style (for the most part – there’s some traditional stuff hidden away in there) which is invariably cheaper and now expected by audiences. This is fine when done well, and the mixture of styles and painted appearance makes Tangled stand out in this respect.

Anyway, as the story goes, Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) was kidnapped as a baby by the evil witch Gothel (Donna Murphy), who is obsessed with a special plant that can grant everlasting youth. When the plant is used to save Rapunzel’s mother during childbirth, its power is transferred into Rapunzel and, provided she never cuts her hair, by singing a particular song she can restore youth and heal injuries. As she approaches her 18th birthday we also meet Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi), a good-looking rogue and scoundrel whose main concern is that they never seem to get his nose right on the “Wanted” posters his visage appears on.

Tangled has its fair share of stunning imagery, the lantern sequence in particular is one that will linger in the memory, but in other areas such as the small enclosed valley in which Rapunzel’s tower is located the artwork is sublime and equally as beautiful, but in a more understated manner.

Much of the humour stems from the love-hate relationship between Flynn Rider and Maximus, a horse. Maximus has all the personality of a dog but in the body of a horse, and could easily be considered the most fun and enjoyable character of the entire film. In a near second place is the old bearded viking chap who is rocking the Cupid look. More of Maximus would certainly go down a treat, although perhaps using him too much may result in the law of diminishing returns coming into play.

That's an odd fetish. — That’s an odd fetish.

Rapunzel herself is a joy, simultaneously conflicted about going against her mother’s wishes yet desperate to get out into the world and start living her life outside of the tower. She’s precisely the sort of modern Disney princess that is needed, both loveable yet a fully rounded character at the same time. She doesn’t need saving by the male characters – indeed, Flynn Rider is most definitely secondary to her – and despite her concerns about her mother’s reaction to her going outside knows precisely what she wants from her life. The fact she also turns out to be a princess is the icing on the cake.

The songs too are incredibly catchy, mixing up folk rock sounds with a medieval style, yet retaining a modern feel. Songs such as When Will My Life Begin, Mother Knows Best and I’ve Got A Dream are worthy tracks even when listened to outside of the film. I See The Light is the ballad of the piece, along similar lines to Aladdin’s A Whole New World, Beauty and the Beast’s Tale As Old As Time and The Lion King’s Can You Feel The Love Tonight, and is beautifully matched by the the aforementioned lantern sequence.

The formula established by Tangled would be later used to similar and much more financially successful effect by Disney in 2013’s Frozen, but that shouldn’t detract from how enjoyable and delightful Tangled turned out to be. It stands up to repeat viewings and is a worthy 50th entry in the Disney Animated Classics series.

Score: 4/5

1...424344...90 Page 43 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM